Talk:Two-cent piece (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Two-cent piece (United States) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2014.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 23, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
January 4, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 25, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the US government turned two cents into one?
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject United States (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Numismatics (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Where did these images come from?

Crisco comments[edit]

  • Two-cent piece redirects here. Unless another piece of the same name exists, shouldn't this be at that title?
Australia had one until about 2000, off the top of my head. They've since eliminated all coins under ten cents.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Australia still has a 5c coin. This is a great article. Perhaps a little overblown for a coin that hasn't existed for over 100 years but it's impossible to criticise the fine work that has gone into the article. My only issue would be the lack of some notation in the title that it is the US coin. Not only did Australia have 2c coins for longer and more recently but NZ would have as well. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • cents today, - may date (i.e. what if they change the size of the coins)?
  • nickel in the coinage - Possibly unclear for non-American readers that we mean the metal here
  • File:1836_pattern_2c.jpg is blurry; do you have anything clearer?
No, regretfully, I did see that. It will have to wait until next time I am in Colorado Springs. I am making a list.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • bills - I'm reading this as banknotes. Any link to what sort of "bill" this would have been?
  • Link to Planchet?
  • of the diameter of the cent today, - same as above
  • French bronze - worth a redlink?
It's just what we call bronze today. Contemporary term.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • one-cent and two-cent -> one- and two-cent
  • "Shall we destroy all this property because by coining with another metal more money may be saved to the government?" -> Glad to see politics hasn't changed a bit (no action required)
  • brass - different than what is standard for brass?
Stevens didn't say. I think he really meant verdigris but I'm hesitant to link.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • that because a producer spends money in anticipation of government sales, that the government was thereby perpetually bound to purchase his wares. - Suggest arranging this sentence "that the government was perpetually bound to purchase a producer's wares because he had spent money in anticipation of government sales." or something similar; probably easier to parse
  • a legal tender - a legal tender or legal tender?
  • The motto was popularized by the new coin; in 1865 Congress passed legislation ordering its use on all coins large enough to permit it; since 1938 it has been used on all American coins. - too many clauses
  • 13 vertical stripes, or "paleways" symbolize the states; - clarify that it was the original colonies, perhaps? In 1864 there were give or take 40 states, if I'm not mistaken.
  • More at another time... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, a few hasty comments above. I did notice the blurry 1836, regretfully it was the only shot I got of that coin. I may go to Colorado Springs in September but I don't know my schedule yet. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I've implemented those comments in one form or another, where I did not respond, except two that I am still thinking about (legal tender and the in god we trust).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Although Pollock reported hoarding of cents in his June 1864 report, he did not thereafter mention such activities. Although silver coin still did not circulate in much of the nation, the new coins (joined by the three- and five-cent pieces of copper-nickel, first struck in 1865 and 1866 respectively) answered the need for small change. - Although ... although
  • Treasury Secretary George S. Boutwell asked Congress in pass a redemption act, - Hmm
  • Numismatist S.W. Freeman noted in 1954 that few alive could remember spending a two-cent piece, but for those who did, it was often associated with spending it at a candy store, where at the time two cents would buy a quantity of sweets, as a dime did in Freeman's day, and, he feared, it would take a quarter to do in the future. - Long, rambling, …
Still, it is the only nonfiction anecdote involving a two-cent piece I have. There is a fictional anecdote from Penrod, but it's fiction. Pre WWI. Penrod, as I recall (who is aged about 12), gives a small child a two-cent piece. I proposed adding it to this article some years ago but feelings were against it. Also want to use that Freeman article which is otherwise very specialized (die varieties).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Can we at least avoid the mess of commas? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Two-cent piece (United States coin)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 16:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Will review this one sometime in the next few hours. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

Funny to see Thaddeus Stevens show up here--a nice intersection of your interests. As usual, well-written and well-researched; I made some tweaks as I went (feel free to revert) but I don't see any serious issues.

Yes, I enjoyed giving him a shout-out! And I get a lot of intersections between the coin world and the 1896 election! Thanks for the good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA

Precise-enough title[edit]

I just moved this article to the precise-enough title Two-cent piece, per WP:PRECISION. I could not find a titling/naming rule at the numismatics project page; if there is some rule mandating the qualifier even when there is no ambiguity, let me know and I'll move it back (and update the list at WP:PRECISION with this exception). Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a lot of discussion at the Numismatics wikiproject these days. The thing is, both Australia and New Zealand have issued two cent pieces to my knowledge, and probably a few other countries as well. Not important to me either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
What Wehwalt said. I'd personally like to see it moved back for the reasons he states. Australia had 2c coins from 1966 until the early 1990s. You will note that this page has the qualifier Australian in the title ( Pretty much the same story with NZ ( I'd ask JHunterJ to move the page back to something that identifies the article as being solely about the American coin. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I guess that's the best way forward. Unless we went with United States Two Cent piece. I don't think we can really leave this article title as it is though. I should add that the word coin is preferable to piece for the AUS/NZ articles. Tigerman2005 (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Well you've got my support. Maybe we should wait to hear back from the original mover? But I don't see it as particularly controversial. Tigerman2005 (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, will move. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, was at a show last night. I'm OK with the move. I agree with the move, the word "coin" seems redundant.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Since this is now qualified from the base name, I've made the base name a disambiguation page, which is the other way to handle WP:PRECISION if all the topics need to be qualified. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Excellent result all round. My profound appreciation and respect goes to all of you for the speedy and consultative way it was all handled. The way Wikipedia should be!! Tigerman2005 (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


This article makes it clear that the two-cent piece came into being because people were hoarding coins during the American Civil War, but I don't understand why the war would cause people to hoard coins. Would it be possible for someone to add this information to the article? I am confused as to why anyone would hoard coins at all; we don't have a Coin hoarding article to explain this phenomenon. Neelix (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Because Lincoln's government was issuing fiat money, paper backed only by the promise of repayment, so people hoarded gold and silver rather than spend it. They at least contained guaranteed value. Paper money--well, the North could lose the war and then where would that be? Many people in the South turned in gold and silver and accepted paper money and bonds. That ended badly for them.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Two-cent piece (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)