Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-04 1950s Topps

Who are the involved parties?
User:Libro0, User:Baseball Card Guy

What's going on?
There is a disagreement about use of decimals vs fractions for size description in inches. There is also a dispute regarding the overuse of unsourced non-free images. I have also been unable to add information because of unwarranted reverting by the other party. :-)

Update. Some of the issues have been dealt with while newer ones have arisen. There has been a dispute with regard to use of the brand name image. There is also the question of being able to use the term 'standard' for certain card dimensions which are industry designated 'standard size' which is two and one half by three and one half inches. There are several other issues I have not touched on yet such as table usage. Libro0 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
I would appreciate it if the verifiability of a source is respected. I would also like it if the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines were also adhered to.

Additional: Although the case is directed at the 1950s Topps article, it was my hope to try and standardize the pages involving the other years as well. I would like to have a good number of established users assist in the upgrade and cleanup of these articles. The opinions and advice of long established users should help the progress of the article's improvement. Libro0 (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
I would appreciate it if the discussions I have made on the talk page would be acknowledged and properly responded to. I am somewhat working on this, though I am not a member of this mediation group. FYI, the RFC is here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just more attacking from Libro0. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

On decimals vs fractions
Okay, I think I've gone over this dispute well enough to start talking about it. The first thing I want you two to clarify is the decimals vs fractions issue. In my opinion, it is strictly an aesthetic/readability thing. I don't think accuracy has anything to do with. As decimals, all of those measurement would be accurate as long as they are not rounded. Would each of you tell me your case in terms of aesthetic/readability? By the way, don't respond to each other just yet(I want to make sure I understand each position first). Mike92591 (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the decimal issue was resolved at Talk:1950s_Topps. At least there hasn't been any edit warring about decimals for over a month now. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that but, I didn't see much from Baseball Card Guy so I thought I should ask anyway. Mike92591 (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Libro0's view
Aesthetically speaking I don't care for 2,3,4 or more decimals places. Neither did Fram which is why he rounded them causing a diminished accuracy. See here. Libro0 (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So I'm assuming that accuracy is an issue but, what makes you think that 2 to 4 decimals digits aren't good for most readers? Mike92591 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The inconsistency and because inches are not measured that way and are more easily understood as x/16 whereas metric is measured and understood in decimals. All sources printed or electronic that I have encountered use fractions to describe the dimensions. The reader can then verify without the hassle of conversions. Libro0 (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Inches are measured that way just not often. So is your reason commonness? Mike92591 (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

True. Decimal inches are seldom seen outside of mechanical engineering. Libro0 (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen them in many other places outside of mechanical engineering. Printing and graphic design come to mind. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Card Guy's view
This will be my only statement until Libro0 lives up to her word and stops editing the baseball card articles as she promised and gives me a formal apology for her egregious violations of etiquette, policy, and civility. Any apology that includes the typical mean spirited passive aggressive attacks that Libro0 seems to love will not be considered an apology, but an escalation. The statement is as follows:

Libro0 has been deliberately targeting me and without consensus and ignoring other has been unilaterally editing the baseball card articles as she sees fit. She has deliberately engaged in attacks, calling in others while wasting their time with her lies and schemes. She has deliberately attacked me on several occasions. I will not be a further party to her attacks, but I will remove her vandalism. As for decimals, they make sense as fractions do not look right. 2 1/2 or 2.5? Which looks better? Which takes up less space?

Again, this is all I have to say until Libro0 acts. The ball is in her court. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether that's true or not, let's put off talking about individuals for now. So you mentioned space but, that would only be the case if they were rounded. How important do you think accuracy is? What makes you so certain that most readers will think the same? Mike92591 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This was already covered. Half or 1/2 was said to be the one instance where 0.5 could be used. So 2.5 or 3.5 are all okay. I would like to move on to 'standard', font/logo/image, tables and other standardizing issues. Libro0 (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll move on when I'm ready to move on. Also, that may not be inline with your reason. Mike92591 (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have given Libro0 specific instructions on how to contact Topps, including the address, nearest subway stations, maps and link to a trip planner. She has no excuse to either contact them in person, via the mail, or via a hand delivered letter. I have spelled out specific instructions, including authentication protocols, with a specific time line. This should not be particularly hard to complete and it would allow for her to once and for all prove the copyright status of the various Topps packaging from the 1950s and 1960s. If she thinks and makes the claim that this material is not governed by copyright, she should prove it. It just requires a bit of traditional communication. This is my last communication with regards to this matter unless Libro0 complies. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Libro0 has not contacted Topps despite giving detailed instructions on how to contact them either in person or mail. She obviously has no desire to properly resolve this situation by obtaining the proper information with regard to the Topps packaging copyright and her jokes of previous attempts are laughable. Libro0 obviously is doing this in bad faith and had no desire to confirm the copyright status. You want to have things for people who already know about baseball cards. This is not the place for that! Standard. Yeah, that is going to clear things up. You just seem to bully your way through things with your passive aggressive attacks, lies and dragging others in to these petty arguments of your creation. Do you get off on having other people waste time on messes you create? You seem to enjoy this and not really care about the quality of the articles it is just lets make everything perfect and perfect is only known to Libro0 so everything should be like she wants it. This whole thing is bogus.  I will not let Libro0 drive me off with her attacks, lies and exploiting the system. This needs to be shut down now so no more time is wasted by anyone. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Baseball Card Guy’s comments about contacting Topps are apparently with regard to the copyright status of the brand image used for identification in the article. But as nearly as I can tell that image is not in the scope of this mediation. In any case its copyright status is immaterial: For if the copyright has expired, as Libro0 thinks, the image is in the public domain and is available for use in the article. If on the other hand the copyright was renewed, as Baseball Card Guy thinks, the use of the image on the article is in accord with US fair use law and Non-free content criteria policy. So it is a non-issue. —teb728 t c 09:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that Baseball Card Guy’s comments about contacting Topps was a dig at Libro0. In the past he gave me the same sort of ultimatum/passive aggressive attack. This is just another salvo in the ongoing war between these two. They have wasted a lot of people's time with their petty bickering. The ideal situation would be bans for both. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts and further discussion
I figure anything about a preference to either would be here but, it isn't. In my opinion, The only strong reason given was commonness. It makes sense that it would be more readable because it would be in a format they'd expect. So, I think fractions should be used over decimals for inches. As for using "standard", I don't see much of an advantage to it. You guys might also want to consider separating the size column. Mike92591 (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The advantages to using 'standard' are that it nullifies frac v dec and would not necessitate separating the size column. There is also the question of verifiability. The source material listed, itself uses the term standard for the vast majority of sets given that it began regular use in 1957. The descriptions will say 'this is a standard-sized set' and they will not state what size standard is in the description itself however all terminology and abbreviations are given in the introduction of the books. This is something I have already attempted here for example. It is therefore not so much a matter of advantage as it is about including factual data that is relevant to this body of material. On a similar note I wanted to also discuss table usage. The use of tables does organize data neatly, however it is limiting in a way that prose is not. The format seen in other years, see 1987 Topps for example, allows for flexibility in disseminating information where a table provides identical set by set information in a more stringent fashion. Tables should be used sparingly. I would prefer, for example the use of tables for such sections as 'Parallel Sets' which occur with more frequency in the late 80's and early 90's. There are tables used in some places where it provides no practical use where a written explanation would prove much more satisfactory. Libro0 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant separating inches and centimeters by the way (you should at least have a line break). You say it nullifies it but it couldn't, all "standard" could do is substitute a value which would be given somewhere else in either a fraction or a decimal. There wouldn't be much change in information (just an additional definition). For table usage, there are some strange ones. Has this been an issue? It seems like there wouldn't much disagreements about it for some of those articles. Mike92591 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to make that point but I think it is on the talk page. 'Standard' would substitute the specific size two and one half by three and one half inches thereby rendering the frac v dec debate null and void, again for that size only. To see how it would look go here. You can see that the explanation of what 'standard' means is at the end of the opening paragraph. I could make it italic or bold to alert the readers. The explanation could alternately be placed as a footnote under the table. As for tables, specific ones that should be removed are the 1950s Basketball and Venezuelan tables. The Venezuelan info should be worked into the paragraph while the Basketball one needs a paragraph period - no table. In general I think tables should be used for a listing of 4 or more sets and then only if they do not limit what information could be covered by a written explanation. There hasn't been problems because I have been extremely compromising about things. BCG is completely uncompromising; if I were to remove the 1981 table, which is totally redundant and takes up space, it would ignite a firestorm from him. That is why I have not brought it up until now. Keep in mind there are several other issues I have not brought up yet but one thing at a time. Libro0 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Libro0 is again wrong. Despite Libro0 not fulfilling her end of the deal I have to comment. Standard is not acceptable since if you knew nothing of baseball cards you would have no idea what standard is. That is just pure pigheadedness assuming that everyone knows what the hell it is. Putting an explanation is not acceptable. You can also see that in her above message she is again using passive aggressive attacks against me. That is unacceptable behavior. She should stop constantly attacking people. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is true that a quantity of people will not know what standard means. That does not mean exclude, rather it means inform; such is the function of the encyclopedia. Please note the following comes from the cited source at the bottom of the pages being discussed. From the Glossary on page 36 it states verbatim: Standard Size- "Most modern sports cards measure 2-1/2 by 3-1/2 inches. Exception are noted in card descriptions throughout this book." The description for 1957 Topps on page 759 states: "In 1957, Topps returned to the vertical obverse, adopted what we now call the standard card size, and used a large..." The description for 1958 Topps on page 760 has as an opening statement: "This is a 494-card standard-size set." No numerical measurements are stated. This is true for most all of the modern Topps, Fleer, Donruss, etc. issues. With this verification the inclusion of the information should be suitable. Libro0 (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't think "standard" would be helpful, I don't think it'd cause any real harm (more of a minor annoyance). On tables, Libro0 position seems reasonable. Also, I don't want to hear that you guys don't like each other; I already know that. Mike92591 (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Standard does not seem helpful and this again is yet another battle in the ongoing war between Libro0 and Baseball Card Guy. These two have wasted enough people's time. Getting back on point - if you want to mention standard size mention it, maybe create an article about standard trading card size in North America with a link to it (as you apparently have a source), but if you are going to list every product it makes sense to list the dimensions for every product then using the term "standard" instead of dimensions could cause confusion. If you want to write things for baseball card enthusiasts, write for Beckettpedia. These articles may be read by baseball card enthusiasts, but then again they may not be. The goal for Wikipedia is to write something not filled with jargon by and for experts. As for tables, I think they work graphically better for presenting the information. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The minor annoyance is a person's inquisitive nature which is what leads them to read further - something you want people to do. We have to be sure and provide that info. My suggestion was only to make things a little neater looking. Either way I have included a mention of standard size in the introduction of 1950s Topps on account of it being a notable point on the trading card timeline. Libro0 (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So you would eliminate information to generate page hits? It isn't like there are ads here to generate revenue. Mention standard size, give it is own article, but when dealing with measurements elsewhere use the actual numbers. This makes things consistent and easier to deal with. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

On non-free images
The opinions seem straight forward enough, I'll just give my thoughts. The images I've looked at seem to be used reasonably. They all seem to be in fair use. Non-free_content looks like it is being followed. It's not like its giving each card, just an example from each year. I'd consider that different enough to justify it. Also, I think an example is helpful but a link to all of the corresponding cards would be nice too. Mike92591 (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to avoid being redundant I have a suggestion for image use between Topps and OPC pages. Given that OPC baseball sets are identical via license it is not necessary to illustrate an OPC baseball card. Instead it might be preferable for OPC pages to feature images of 'pure' OPC cards like the CFL cards or Hockey. It would be sufficient to mention that baseball issues looked like Topps therefore 'See Topps' would do. Libro0 (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The O-Pee-Chee cards, I'll use the proper name since not everyone is an expert in baseball cards, should be shown. They are not identical, very similar, but not identical. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Granted, they are not 100% identical but they are similar enough that it renders the image pointless. It would be understandable if there was a notable variation but those slight differences are already mentioned in the article. In fact the images being used are Topps images. Libro0 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. It is best to show images of everything if at all possible. You also seem to be making an accusation without providing evidence. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My position is that I favor writing an article that includes as much relevant information as possible including visuals. I am not in favor of a list/gallery article. We have to draw the line somewhere; 'images of everything' is not practical nor is it necessary. One base set image per year combined with a gallery link is suitable for the purposes and guidelines of the encyclopedia. There are plenty of galleries already out there that we can utilize. I prefer to have a focus a variety of information. It was established above that many people do not know what standard means, so I included that information because people are curious. Apoc2400 himself asked 'why are there so many different sizes?' This is a great question that we can provide an answer for. Cards go from many sizes in the 1st half of the century to predominately one size after that. Wouldn't it make sense to explain that phenomena? There is a lot of information to talk about that an image cannot tell. What is a Test set? Why have license agreements with Venezuela and Canada? Why do they not distribute soccer cards in the U.S.? What is the reason for regional and food issues, or the choice of subject for non-sport sets? What type of confections should placed in the packages: cookie, caramels, gum? What size should they be and how many pieces? Do you plan on covering any cultural or economic information with a list/gallery? Libro0 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop comparing apples and oranges. You make no sense, as always. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: you want an image for each year but not for each card type. Mike92591 (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was suggesting something more informative for OPC than to just recycle the Topps baseball images. As for quantity, again there is no reason to go overboard. There are numerous galleries that do justice to every year, type, and manufacturer. Libro0 (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't be going overboard though, just giving a picture for each card type. Mike92591 (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with what is there now, except in your mind. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Tables
The use of tables does organize data neatly, however it is limiting in a way that prose is not. The format seen in other years, see 1987 Topps for example, allows for flexibility in disseminating information where a table provides identical set by set information in a more stringent fashion. Tables should be used sparingly. I would prefer, for example the use of tables for such sections as 'Parallel Sets' which occur with more frequency in the late 80's and early 90's. There are tables used in some places where it provides no practical use where a written explanation would prove much more satisfactory. Libro0 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

For table usage, there are some strange ones. Has this been an issue? It seems like there wouldn't much disagreements about it for some of those articles. Mike92591 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As for tables, specific ones that should be removed are the 1950s Basketball and Venezuelan tables. The Venezuelan info should be worked into the paragraph while the Basketball one needs a paragraph period - no table. In general I think tables should be used for a listing of 4 or more sets and then only if they do not limit what information could be covered by a written explanation. There hasn't been problems because I have been extremely compromising about things. BCG is completely uncompromising; if I were to remove the 1981 table, which is totally redundant and takes up space, it would ignite a firestorm from him. That is why I have not brought it up until now. Libro0 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

and, you don't think that tables and paragraphs can live in harmony? Mike92591 (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are going back to tables and paragraphs. I thought it was pretty clear that they can live in harmony. Just don't make a tiny data box for one or two sets, it is far more appropriate to write about them. Libro0 (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tables: Allow me to get a little more precise about this. A table offers a consistent group of values to be displayed for each set. Quantitative information that they all share is easily formatted to such a tool. However one or more sets may have a special or unique quality or something notable that merits explanation. This is better achieved by way of free text. I find it awkward to add numerous columns to a table only to include that columns information for one or two sets or try to cram a large quantity of info into a little box. You might notice that on the 1950s Topps page I have written out the information for several sets of which it would be of little to no use to employ a data box for. Libro0 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you do both and, what do images have to do with it ? Mike92591 (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You can do both where appropriate. There are some legitimate tables above which additional info can be written. There are still certain tables as I mentioned above that I would remove however. Libro0 (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're not addressing my concern, you said "and then only if they do not limit what information could be covered by a written explanation". Mike92591 (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in that regard a specific case of a table I would remove is 1981. The information was already there. There is no need for that table because it does not help elaborate on the information that is there or any more that could be added. Libro0 (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, how could it limit it. Mike92591 (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A table provides you with a little box under a specific heading hence the limiting factor. Great for organizing the smaller bits of data but they don't allow you to explain an idea at length if needed. Although they are neat and even engaging, sometimes it is just better to have good old fashioned written dialogue. When I say limited I mean limited space. It is more efficient for some data to be written out rather than tableized. Libro0 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You just need to stop her. She makes no sense. You are just encouraging the troll! Baseball Card Guy (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Libro0, that's not what you said at all. Lying to save face isn't going to decrease the antagonism or get what is good for the article. Baseball Card Guy, quit being obnoxious. I'm really sick of your stupid little nags. If you guys are going to continue to do this shit I'll just leave, there's no point if you guys are just here to bitch. Mike92591 (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I retract this comment, it wasn't called for at all. Mike92591 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

She lies. That is what she does. Lies, makes false accusations, and ties people up with things like this for some reason. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
Example 1

Basketball
Tell me what the above set looks like or tell me why they decided to make one that year of that size and quantity. Why of that league. What was the distribution like and why were they discontinued. There is quite a bit I don't see.

Example 2

Boxing
1951 Topps Ringside

Topps' only boxing issue came out in 1951 and was called 'Ringside'. The set featured current and former boxing stars as well as wrestlers. The set totals 96 color cards with biographical information on the back. Some of the cards depicted a championship belt above the athlete's name indicating their weight class and year(s) they held the title.

Multi-sport
1948 Topps Magic Photos (R714-27)

This set contains 252 small individual cards featuring sport and non-sport subjects. They were issued in 19 lettered series with cards numbered within each series. The 'magic' of the cards were the fact that they came out of the pack blank until the image was revealed by moistening the surface and applying the developing agent which was supplied by the wrapper in a one cent pack or a piece of orange mystery paper supplied in the five cent packs. The subsets by group letter are: A Boxing Champions, B All-American Basketball, C All-American Football, D Wrestling Champions, E Track & Field Champions, F Stars of Stage & Screen, G American Dogs, H General Sports, I None issued, J Movie Stars, K Baseball Hall of Fame, L Aviation Pioneers, M Famous Landmarks, N American Inventors, O American Military Leaders, P American Explorers, Q Basketball Thrills, R Football Thrills, S Figures of the Wild West, T General Sports. Size: $7/8$ x $1 7/16$ in (2.2 x 3.7 cm)

1956 Hocus Focus

The second issue of Magic Photos came in 1956. This set was similar in that it was a series of subsets featuring various sports and non-sport subjects. Among them are aircraft, buildings, world leaders, actors, submarines, automobiles, and famous landmarks. Size: $7/8$ x $1 7/16$ in (2.2 x 3.7 cm) Place all of the above information into a table. Why would you though? Libro0 (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree in those cases. Do you think that tables should only be use where prose wouldn't flow well (Like like a whole series of these:"___ was ___ in ___.")? Do you think that if prose can be made well, it should be preferred over tables to cover the same information? Mike92591 (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think text should be the default. Tables can be applied to a group of sets that are less notable therefore not requiring an extensive description. This works for parallel and food/retail sets from about 1985 onward where a table would suffice for displaying their basic information. Libro0 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No it will not work and you know why. This is just all a part of your campaign. You know that listing all the sets in a table for a specific year makes sense as it gives the information in one quickly digestible format. Descriptions can also be used not in the table if needed in conjunction with the table. Have you contacted Topps yet? Baseball Card Guy (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand the niceness of tables but, I'm not too crazy about all these little embedded tables. My suggestion is to create an article that has a table containing every covered card type, use the current set of articles for in depth descriptions and, only use little embedded tables for the dull stuff. Mike92591 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the dull stuff is pretty much what the parallel and food/retail sets comprise. Just to clarify, when you say 'type' do you mean manufacturer, year, sport? Because when I say card 'type' I mean base set, traded, large, mini, insert, send-in, etc. Libro0 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean everything in Template:Topps Sports Card Products By Year. Mike92591 (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Mergers
There are some merging issues I would like to discuss which is something I have held off because it is quite volatile and any action on my part will unleash the wrath of BCG [Libro0 retracted this part by an edit]. Libro0 (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC) postpostscript by Mike92591 (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop taunting me with your passive aggressive attacks! Baseball Card Guy (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I brought this up because both the images and tables sections are somewhat related and lead into this. Libro0 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You said 'to create an article that has a table containing every covered card type', however there are already pages for Baseball card, Football card, Hockey card, Sports cards, Trading cards, Non-sports trading card among others. These could be put to use. Regarding the mergers; I made 50s, 60s, and 70s as a decade because of limited content. From 1980 onward there was enough content to warrant a single page per year. I did not create OPC pages aside from 91-94. I felt there was not enough OPC content and I was not sure how to combine them to make a suitable article and not a stub that would risk deletion on account of notability. Libro0 (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think OPC pages have considerably less than Topps and might be combined in their entirety or possibly in two halves, maybe pre 1980 and post 1980. The focus should be on their candy and Hockey cards. Since the baseball cards are licensed reproductions, that info can be put into tables. I think that individual pages for 70s Topps are too small to be considered notable years. I say this because I was already told to merge the 80s and 90s on account of notability after the deletion of 1993, so 70s definitely has to be merged. I feel I have expanded the content enough to warrant single years from 1980 onward. I stopped at 1995 for the time being since there was plenty of pages to work on. However, I believe another problem will arise with years from 2000 to present. The explosion of new products along with the many parallels and variations an individual year may have to be subdivided into each sport but that is another bridge. Libro0 (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Card Guy, what do you think? Mike92591 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not acceptable. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1970s Topps already exists by the way. It was removed from the template and it has not been allowed to be put back. I have put off working on it because of this issue. BCG broke up the years because he wanted to have an image of each year. Libro0 (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No that is not why I did that you liar! I know you cannot stop your lies and attacks and incivility so just don't say anything and we will all be better off. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You said, "Breaking things out year by year could possibly be a way to get around it. --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)" Libro0 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Typical Democrat trick! Take things out of context and not even give an idea when or where it was said. Did you contact Topps like you were asked? Baseball Card Guy (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you rephrase it so it isn't so dependent on a context then? Mike92591 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)