Template talk:NoCoins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Decimal Separator[edit]

I switched the decimal separators to come in line with SI standards, i.e. the point. Comma separated would be fine too, but the interpunkt is not in common use and inapprorpiate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.143.59 (talkcontribs) 13:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Large edit[edit]

I've attempted to condense this down to a much smaller template that gets the same thing across. I was unaware of the previous edits by 12.x.x.x, however I am not that dude and am not trying to start (yet another) measurements/edit war by my changes. 68.39.174.238 04:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Object to template[edit]

I'm astonished to find this template! Are there any coins in current circulation that are, say, more than twice or less than half the diameter of a US quarter? The coin is not meant to be a *measurement* of the object in the photo but instead give the reader a quick perception of the order-of-magnitude of the size of the objects in the illustration. I also don't understand the "geographic" objection, either. Let's spend more time getting good pictures in the Wikipedia and less time harping about trivialities! --Wtshymanski 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Geographic" appears to imply that, for example, US residents will be more familiar with dollar based coins than with pound based or euro based coins. But I too object to the widespread application of this template for reasons that I have explained in the corresponding Commons template's talk page. --Damian Yerrick () 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been in a lot of countries, so I don't know how much coin diameters change world-wide. I'm sure this goes for most people. I do know that I haven't a clue how big US quarters (or any other money for that matter) is. I do know that the coins in my country come in different sizes, the smallest one quite a bit so compared to the largest one. That makes it possible that quarters are twice, or half as big as what I'd guess, which I proves the point the template is trying to make. (I'm not following the distinction you make between the parts before and after "I also don't understand".)
I suppose you could call this trivial, but even small improvements are improvements, and if you don't strive for perfect you'll never even get close to it. Most Wikipedia readers will never even get to see the template, so it won't bother them (where the alien coins just might), and the people editing Wikipedia will take notice and hopefully use a ruler instead next time... although of course it's less likely they'll have that with them at that time. I don't think this is a big deal either, but if an image can be exchanged for a better one one day... why not! Retodon8 17:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Although I am a currency collector myself and know the sizes of most currently circulating coins on the top of my head, I have to agree with Retodon8. Using a ruler is always unambiguous. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
And how is "This coin is 24 mm in diameter" in an image description more ambiguous than "This distracting photoshopped-in circle is 24 mm in diameter"? This was the core of my argument on Commons. Not everybody has a decent metric ruler handy. --Damian Yerrick () 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is most images that use coin as a scale reference usually lack the text description of the coin size like you have diligently done with the image page, as well as the page that includes the image. Even if they do on the image page, readers who are unfamiliar with the coin won't know until clicking on the image and read the text description. It's not your fault if you don't have a metric ruler. Nor am I denying the contribution you have made. I'm just saying it would be better if a ruler is used instead (with high enough resolution, of course). If you agree that a ruler is better, than this template is useful in the sense that it makes editor aware of the issue. It has certainly got my attention. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a ruler would necessarily show up that well when shrunk down to a 200px thumbnail. In order to read the markings on the ruler, the reader would have to click through to enlarge the photo, which would bring the description into view. See the infobox at the top of VHS. --Damian Yerrick () 06:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Even for larger object such as VHS tape, this can be easily resolved. Just photoshop over a segment of 10 cm (which is roughly half of the width of VHS) with larger font. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not the intention to scale an object against the coin! If you actually care about the dimensions of the object, give the actual dimensions. All the coin is supposed to show is if the object will fit in a pocket or need a fork truck lift. Are there any coins currently in circulation in the world which are less than one-half or more than twice the diameter of a US quarter? Presumably whoever's using a coin to give scale will pick a common coin, not a 5 ore Swedish coin or a 1912 Canadian penny. --Wtshymanski 02:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The coin used could be as small as a one-eurocent coin (16.25mm) or as large as an Australian 50-cent piece (over 31.5mm). That's an unacceptable margin. If you don't have a metric ruler to hand, don't put anything extraneous in the photo. It's just unhelpful clutter that reinforces a national bias. — Chameleon 03:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


I agree with Wtshymanski...a coin shows relative scale, not absolute measurement. Most articles will have an absolute measurement somewhere if you are truly interested. The fact that a coin could range from 16-31mm is pretty irrelevant when you're just trying to show that the object is "the size of a coin", instead of a paperclip, or deck of cards, or a bowling ball. Furthermore, I agree that a coin is a much better arbiter of size in a thumbnail-size picture than a ruler unless it is a very clear picture with a high level of zoom. Maybe the Wikimedia foundation could issue an official 25mm token that we could all keep in our pockets should a good photo present iself ;-) ---JD79 13:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What JD79 suggests may be a good compromise. Why don't we recommend all editor to use a coin that is similar to the following:

  • US quarter: 24.26 mm
  • Canadian quarter: 23.88 mm
  • 10 pence sterling: 24.5 mm
  • 50 euro cent: 24.25 mm

The 4 coins above have an average diameter of 24.22 mm. If you don't live in a place where one of the 4 currencies is used, find a coin that is closest to 24.22 mm. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No. — Chameleon 02:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Coin ID[edit]

Would it be useful to have a link to each coin's article, where available? I don't see how this chart is really helpful otherwise, as those unfamiliar with the penny, for example, would neither know what it looks like nor that it's worth 1¢. The image that brought me here is in the Asbestos article. Though, this would be a backwards way of doing it. Images of the individual coins in the template would be cumbersome. I'm of the side that thinks that thinks that most people aren't needing absolute size when looking at an image, and there is an acceptable margin for most cases. It's helpful to have anything in there at all. Considering that the image in the asbestos article was taken by the US Government, it would be silly to wait for a replacement taken with a ruler by an individual. davewho2 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ARGH![edit]

Now look what people are doing! 68.39.174.238 01:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, that looks like some sort of artistic statement about American culture than an attempt to indicate scale! Seriously though, American banknotes are long and thin compared to most others I've seen, so it is quite misleading. — Chameleon 02:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Metric ruler[edit]

The template states SI/metric units are the most commonly used worldwide (see metre, 1 E-2 m). However, the Manual of Style states clearly Conversions to and from metric and imperial/US units are generally provided. Shouldn't the template be changed to read similar to Please use markings in both SI/metric and imperial/US units if possible, but if this is not available use SI/metric units? CR7 13:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No. That's too long-winded. It is better just to point out that metric/SI units are more international. — Chameleon 06:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
But the Manual of Style recommends using both units where possible. CR7 13:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In the Computer case screws article, one uploader chose to show metric units for the items whose design is based on metric units, and imperial/US units are shown for items whose design is based on imperial/US units. I find that practice to be the most representative. With regard to images of precision-manufactured parts, I consider the best unit system to show is the one in which that item was designed.

This, however, would not be representative of natural items such as biological structures, geologic features, or space-based phenomena because the dimensions of those items often vary between individual items and over time. Cartographers have dealt with this exact same problem for centuries; we see it today as a scale bar.

If Wikipedia aims to be encyclopedic, then it follows that its choice of measurement should be the most scientific, standardized, and precise units available: SI, preferably with measurement tools in the photo since photos have locational perspective and depth which can be distorted by photoshopped rulers. Coins, paper money, decks of cards, matchboxes, etc. can be optional but are not compatible with basic encyclopedic expectations. -- 70.149.122.93 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing more precise about SI units (or any unit, for that matter), since accuracy depends only on how small the measuring instrument is divided. Both sets of units are also standardized, particularly since the customary ones are defined in SI terms. Most people in the US have little use for SI on a daily basis, and since this is the English Wikipedia and almost half of English speakers live in the US, both sets of units are included. That said, I see little use for tagging these images as the coins are meant to give a rough estimate. A ruler might be preferable, but I wouldn't call coins unacceptable. PaulGS (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that estimates for the number of English language speakers varies from 500 million to 1.8 billion depending on definitions of literacy and other factors. The US population is about 300 million. So while it's possible almost half English speakers live in the US this is questionable. I'm including both native and non native speakers of course, since there's no reason to only include native speakers. Nil Einne (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Coins change size over time[edit]

Coins change size over time - they are occasionally redesigned a different size either to reduce production costs, or because inflation has so reduced their value that it is inconvenient to carry such large coins for trivial value. For example, the UK current 50p, 10p, and 5p decimal coins are all smaller than when decimal coins were first issued. So if you read in a book written in 1979 that something was the size of a 5p piece - the author meant something much larger than a 2009 5p piece.

I think the template should be modified. If giving sets of coins, it should state what version is referred to, and should also mention the change of size issue.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Moreover, the new dodecagonal £1 coin has a slightly larger face than the circular one. My inclination is to a note such as "coins in circulation as of mid-2017" to the template. But there are still a few problems:
  • Since both £1 coins are currently in circulation, I suppose it would mean giving the sizes of both, but what is the best way to notate this?
  • How do we determine the diameter of a non-circular coin? If it's a curve of constant width then it's easy, but the new £1 coin clearly isn't.
  • Determining the size when older coins have been used in an image is more difficult – it would rely on the reader being able to identify which particular version has been used. — Smjg (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

{{convert}} parameter not displaying content[edit]

Like it says. - See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trona(small).jpg where I included the parameter {{convert|19|mm|in}}. There is no description regarding the specified size like the NoCoins template description suggests. Jarod (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nm, the WikiCommons NoCoin template is different and doesn't take any parameters. But if it did... Jarod (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)