Talk:Wolfsegg Iron

message: It doesn't have a lot of details but should Block of metal in coal be merged with this entry? As far as I can tell they are the same thing. (Emperor 02:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed JD79 01:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: A Cube??? According to that picture, if that's a cube... then pigs fly! SOMEone needs to study geometry again, or at least familiarise themselves with basic shapes. Of course, if this is a bad picture, then it should be replaced.
NCartmell 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dimensions given are 67 by 67 by 45 ... if not cube then at least square in cross-section.
Byron Farrow 02:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geometry 

message: See  for a more up-to-date account than the one we provide here. Since multiple web sites have the same wording for the story, it all must have come from somewhere, but I can't locate the original source. The two museums involved (one in Vöcklabruck, one in Linz) seem to have no web sites, so we can't check that they have this object (or a cast of it) in their collections.  Nothing that I found yet qualifies as a reliable source. The object is referred to elsewhere as the Salzburg Cube.  Gero Kurat is a real person, and he is on the staff of the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna, so a search of his publications might find something. EdJohnston 22:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info on the web about this (but no Reliable Sources) 

message: Thanks to whoever added the two books to the reference list. If you have them, can you state whether they can serve as a reference for anything in the second paragraph?  As discussed in the above section on Talk, I propose to remove the second paragraph if no sources can be found. Since I have searched myself, I know that it is very difficult. EdJohnston 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph still has no sources. I would like to remove it 

message: Hello editors. I'm trying to find out why the article states that the Wolfsegg Iron is kept at the Heimathaus Vöcklabruck, for which an external link is provided. The web site of the Heimathaus says nothing about the Wolfsegg Iron, and the Heimathaus sounds like a domestic museum showing the interiors of houses in a former historical period. It turns out that the claim that the Wolfsegg Iron resides there was added by Editor Bob, who has not made any edits to Wikipedia since 1 April, 2007, so we can't ask him for the source of his information. How about we delete the statement that the Wolfsegg Iron resides there, and remove the link to the Heimathaus museum?  Please let me know your thoughts. EdJohnston 00:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The creator of this article, Editor Bob, seems to have left Wikipedia 

message: How exactly is this a "paranormal" item? Why is it considered an out-of-place artifact? And why is the infobox so ridiculously huge? This article seems more related to archaeology than to paranormal studies. Fuzzform 17:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is so little information in this article that it's impossible to tell why it's considered an "out-of-place artifact". Just looks like an irregularly shaped chunk of iron to me. — Gwalla | Talk 04:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page still has some defenders, though I don't see that it has much useful content. I supported the proposed deletion back in August, but User:Perfectblue97 contested the prod, wanting this report to be properly debunked as a myth. In my view there is so little sourcing of any kind that we are in a poor position to debunk anything.  So we are left with a fragmentary article that's not good for much. I would support another motion for deletion. EdJohnston 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal? 

message: Hey folks, I am from Vöcklabruck, where this item is kept and I must admit, that I never heard of it. I'm very interested in what should be special about it. What is abnormal or even paranormal about this item? If you have any requests for further details, I could go to the small museum at Heimathaus and talk to the director. --El bes (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please! It is doubtful whether this object is really located at Vöcklabruck, though there is a web rumor about it. Perhaps the museum director has heard of the rumor and can provide more information. The claim is that this is an 'out of time' object that is too advanced to have been found where it was found.  Not everyone agrees, but if we can put any facts at all into the article it would be an improvement. (The object presumably exists, or did at one time, though it may not be evidence of any kind of unusual stuff). EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vöcklabruck 

message: Here is the original text of the "Note" as published in Nature in 1886:
--Very trivial (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original article in the journal ''Nature''