Talk:Trick deck

message: Material in this article was deleted because it had no attribution, source, or citation.
See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Attribution, and Wikipedia:No original research.
This deletion is also in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject:Magic policy, as stated below:
If information about a method is quoted from another freely available source then it becomes more difficult for magicians to argue that Wikipedia is the point at which exposure is occurring. Proper citation of sources should also help to defend Wikipedia against any action for breach of confidentiality. In addition, some unsourced information on methods that has crept into Wikipedia appears speculative and inaccurate, which undermines the quality of the Magic Project generally and contravenes WP:NOR
It is therefore especially vital to adhere to WP:Attribution.
--
If a method is added to an article but no reference is provided the following from WP:Attribution will apply:
"Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."
Given the sections above about controversial material and original research, this can be applied immediately and overrides the practice of tagging information as unsourced and then waiting for a period to see whether citations are subsequently provided. A request for sources for a method should be placed on the talk page. Only when a full citation can be provided can the method be added to the article. It is recommended that a link to these guidelines be included in the message.
ShimmeryPhantom (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, you actually removed sources in your massive edit. And in at least one case moved a source so that it appeared not to apply to the section you wanted to delete! It's clear you have an agenda here. ApLundell (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've reverted and added sources to the portions that were legitimately unsourced. ApLundell (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a relatively new Wikipedian and a noob. I thought that the methods in question were genuinely unsourced, but now can see that they were sourced. Thank you for reverting these edits. I have reverted the sections about the Mental Photography deck and Brainwave Decks , as they are legitimately not sourced anywhere.ShimmeryPhantom (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bah, you're right, I missed those.  I'll find sources for those later. I'm too lazy to do it right now as they don't seem to be covered in either of the two books I grabbed from my bookshelf.  That's what I get for preferring older books. ApLundell (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Material Deleted -- Justified Under Wikipedia Guidelines 

message: Marked Cards points to a book which is not about trick decks. Tinus 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merge into this article because experts call them trick decks. On Wikipedia you'll find most articles are named after the "correct" terminology. Often there will be a redirect pointing to that article for slang or layman terms. So "marked deck" could redirect here. MaxVeers 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marked Cards

message: The "Mental Photography Deck" (Who calls it that exactly? I have a version that's simply called a "blank deck") and the "Forcing Decks" (which is really just a derivative of what the repeated card is called in a Svengali Deck) are all just variations of Svengali.  They'd be better served as new paragraphs under that heading. ZbeeblebroxIV (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Svengali Variations