Brandmeister- Next trip to the Smithsonian I will see that they have for those two places. For the Belgian Congo, only that specific note, or anything similar of the period?--Godot13 (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Preferably this, but other Belgian Congo francs are also fine so would be interested in them too, as well as in 500 Swiss francs. I couldn't find decent resolutions in the internet for all those. Thanks in advance. Brandmeistertalk 09:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey Godot, I wanted to check before I did it, but would you be ok if I modified your username in the WikiCup table during the final round so as to include the bonus point scores from the FPs? I'm just trying to think of a way to get those numbers into the table and I think you mentioned something similar in an earlier round. Miyagawa (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Miyagawa- I'm cool with that. Not sure what you have in mind, but give it another shot. If it won't automatically tally by bot, I've been faithfully entering each FP bonus here immediately after I submit it. Perhaps there is a way to have a link directly after my username (like "FP BP") that links to the user page table. Whatever works for you/the Cup...--Godot13 (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Perfect, I'll stick a link to that in. Miyagawa (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Godot, any chance of adding a total row to the bonus points table? It'll just make it easier for people to read. Miyagawa (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.
In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.
The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.
Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!
Just to note, I did some additional cleaning on the image - removed some scratches, tears, - and most surprisingly - some stamps and notes at the bottom edge, etc, etc, and uploaded over. Obviously, if the image changes, I need to notify all voters of this fact. Adam Cuerden(talk) 19:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's someone's take on the allure. Sca (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Tempting sometimes...--Godot13 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Is this your idea of nirvana? Sca (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey! Sca, you've already offered me that, I didn't realise I was going to have to share it. Godot13's going to be in a Venezuelan prison anyway after I make off with the forged banknotes and the printer. Belle (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Take your complaints to Capt. Nemo. Sca (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
If you have something to say to me, come to my talk page, and say it.
"I have a proposal for next year's rules: any active participant in the Cup who proposes changes in the scoring rules (or qualifications for participation) prior to October 31 will be immediately disqualified. Too harsh?" - Your recent comment on Josh's talk page. I don't care if this is meant tongue-in-cheek or not. I think it's snarky and unnecessary. — Calvin999 20:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Calvin999- If I have something to say to you, I most certainly will. With all due respect, while you fall within the scope of my comment, it was most certainly not directed at you. It was left on Josh's page because he was the sole judge last year, when I was the focal point of the final round uproar by other active or recently eliminated wikicup participants. It is very unpleasant participating in an event while an active discussion goes on over your motivation, strategy, and (roughly) fairness of play. Snarky? Not given personal experience. Unnecessary? Perhaps. The change of scoring rules following last year's competition made sure that mastery of the FA/FAC would be a prerequisite to winning (in my opinion). I hear your frustration (I feel it too). Personally, I would hope we could all be above complaining about the rules until it is over. Anyway, I'm sorry if my comment offended, it was probably more a reflection of my own experience.--Godot13 (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Calvin999: If I had to pick one person in this discussion who had been unnecessarily aggressive, it wouldn't be Godot. "If you have something to say to me, come ... and say it"? That's fightin' talk. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how I can fall into the scope of the comment and it not be directed at me, to be honest. I never even mentioned you initially. Others did. You may have meant it tongue in cheek, but I most certainly didn't interpret it that way and I still don't. It's not good humour at all. I just see it as you mocking me and poking fun at me. I don't think it was necessary for you to say that, whether you meant it in jest or not, and it was ill-placed and not the right time or place. We've never spoken before, so it's not as though I know your character and humour. Someone said today that you didn't like how people called you out for your submissions last year, so I'm surprised you would kind of do the same thing to me when all I did was air my concerns over the scoring system, not you personally, or anyone else. I used a few editors as an example of what I was getting at. Josh, I know you have good intentions, but I don't think what I said was aggressive, everything comes down to interpretation. We all read text on screen differently. You can't say I don't have a point though, it was about me. Thanks for acknowledging, Godot. Let's forget and move on. We don't need another long thread. — Calvin999 21:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't patronise me. And if, as you accept, "everything comes down to interpretation" and "[w]e all read text on screen differently", perhaps it'd be advisable not to moan at Godot for a personal message to me and for me on my talk page? Just a thought... Josh Milburn (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Calvin999: If you take a moment to look at the thread, you will see at least four editors who made suggestions regarding how to change the scoring and/or who should be able to compete. Mocking you? Poking fun? You are right, we don’t know each other and I generally don’t poke fun at people I don’t know. You can't say I don't have a point though, it was about me. I wasn’t talking to you, and I was referring to a number of editors. If I’m going to refer specifically to you I’ll have the courtesy to at least link you in to the comment. While I’d like to make a few comments that come from a place of understanding your frustration, I’m not going to go there.--Godot13 (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to patronise you Josh, nor would I. I don't believe I was rude to you just now? And Godot has said that I was one of the editors he was referring to, so it doesn't really matter if it's a comment on your talk or not. I'm done with this situation now. What started as a civil message on the Cup talk by me has been blown up by everyone else getting the wrong end of the stick. — Calvin999 08:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I hope you've forgiven me for the doublecross, but if not, to make it up to you I was going to add a translation for your Portuguese banknote, but I'm not sure on the mechanics: the note says the bearer is to be paid "this year" or "within one year" (literally "at/to/in one year"); it could be just the flowery language they love putting on notes, but I thought I'd check in case they did actually have a year to find the gold. Belle (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Belle- All is forgiven (insert smiley face, which I can't seem to find). Knowing how these early notes were generally issued (as either interest bearing or promissory notes), I would think the best translation would be "in one year". You seem to be quite multi-lingual. Many thanks for the help! --Godot13 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Re-reading it, I think the "de hoje" ("of today") belongs to the payment details and not the note; they aren't big on punctuation on banknotes, so it isn't easy, especially when you are dealing with language from the 18th century, but it's a better translation than what was there before anyway ;). If you can decode the letters in the handwritten month I can translate that too, but it doesn't seem to fit anything to my eyes. (My mother, sister and I all have different first languages, so being monolingual was never going to happen). Belle (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if you can help me now; I just translated Jaroslava Muchová and following the Czech article it states: "Alphonse Mucha pictured her on the reverse of the first Czechoslovak ten koruna coin from 1920, and later on the 1931 50 koruna banknote."; that doesn't tie in very well with the articles on Coins of the Czechoslovak koruna (1919) and Banknotes of the Czechoslovak koruna (1919). I have to own up that I added "coin" to "ten koruna" because the second mention was of the banknote, but even if it was a banknote there is no sign of it. Can you dig around in your money archives and see if you can confirm/correct/deny any/all of that sentence. I'll put in a good word with the Venezuelans if you do. Mwah. Belle (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that; I think you got the wrong image though: she would have been 20 in 1929, so I think she is the girl with the headscarf on the front. Is there some way of working out the correct coordinates for the clipping or is it trail and error? Belle (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Belle-No problem. You mean the reverse? The center portrait or side portrait? (To me the side portrait on the front and back look like they could be the same person). I'm happy to redo the css crop (which is trial and error).--Godot13 (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I see you got it. I tweaked it a little so it is in-line with the lead image, and changed the korun to koruna (effects of jetlag...)--Godot13 (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Is that the reverse? It's much prettier; it should be the front! I redid the crop through trial and error (quite a good guess first time though; yay, me!), but your redo is better, we are unlucky with the punch holes' positioning though :(. Belle (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a difficult note to find in issued form. Even the reference book uses the specimen as an image.--Godot13 (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I guessed as much; at least they didn't draw a moustache and glasses on her! Get some sleep/stay awake/whichever you are supposed to do (though 12 hours from Venezuela? They don't get the best planes chartered for the prisoner repatriation flights, do they?) Belle (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, and thank you for your many feature-worthy image contributions! I gather that you're a numismatist. (I'm not, but I respect what you do.) I wondered if you knew why the obverse of this coin is called "Turban Head" when the pictured Liberty is clearly wearing a Phrygian cap? There didn't seem to be an explanation at the Wikipedia article about that series of U.S. $5 coins. Thanks again, GrammarFascistcontribstalk 16:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi GrammarFascist- If you look at the design section of the Turban head eagle article here it highlights some debate about whether the design incorporates a Phrygian cap or something similar (but different).--Godot13 (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to that interesting article. I was not familiar with mob caps and the notion that that's what was depicted is intriguing, though it seems to me that a fashionable hat would have been an odd choice for a coin design. What still puzzles me is how the design came to be referred to as "Turban Head"; while the headgear depicted may or may not be a pileus or Phrygian cap, it doesn't look at all like a turban. Was "turban" perhaps used to mean "foreign-looking headwear I don't understand" rather than referring to actual turbans? Sorry to keep pestering you, but I find the name used to refer to the design really confounding. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 18:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the mob hat as an explanation for the design is quite accurate. I'll do a little digging and see what I can find on the origin of the term Turban Head...-Godot13 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
BTW, is there any reason why the 1933 double eagle wasn't part of the set? ArmbrustThe Homunculus 21:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It would have broken the momentum - it requires a D&R with two other images (a separate front and back image). The basic design type is represented in the set, but the 1933 has enough EV for it's own nom. I was going to get to it before the end of the month. BTW- apologies in advance for the next set to be closed...--Godot13 (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that one. Am I correct that the creator of the banknotes is in the caption for each one? ArmbrustThe Homunculus 21:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)