Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Numismatics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numismatics articles 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Inconsistent "Eagle" styling[edit]

I noticed that Wehwalt (whom I've notified of this discussion) moved the Double Eagle article to Double eagle, with the summary "Should properly be lower case per MOS". However, related articles (including Quarter Eagle and Half Eagle) were not moved.
Upon noticing this, I moved Double eagle back to Double Eagle. I don't know which style is correct. (The prose seems to indicate that the "Eagle" nomenclature comprises a series of proper names formally established by the U.S. Congress, but it's possible that I've misunderstood.) Either way, I'm fairly certain that we should be using one style or the other.
Note that Wehwalt also moved 1933 double eagle and Saint-Gaudens double eagle to their current titles and created Liberty Head double eagle. —David Levy 09:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I moved it because I was working on the denomination, haven't gotten around to the quarter eagle and so forth. Most of the numismatic articles give the denomination (dollar, cent, nickel) in lower case and the descriptor (Liberty Head, Saint-Gaudens) in caps. However, I have made no effort to work ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so we're agreed that consistent styling across the "eagle"/"Eagle" coin articles is desirable. The question is whether the capitalized or uncapitalized style is called for.
My layperson understanding is that the various "Eagle" designations refer not to generic denominations, but to specific U.S. coins formally assigned these proper names. But I'm far from certain of this. Hopefully, others can help us to arrive at an informed consensus (ideally one backed by reliable sources). —David Levy 10:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
If it says "quarter eagle", that is the name of the $2.50 piece. If it is Indian Head quarter eagle, that is the name of a specific type of quarter eagle. Project Numismatics has over 30 FAs, all of which follow this convention, and I didn't write them all (RHM22 wrote several, but he's not very active these days). I would suggest that you look to major non-wiki sources of numismatic information, such as the US Mint, the American Numismatic Association, Coin World, and so forth. Regrettably, we have very few coin collectors. I wish we had some.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Many sources cited in the relevant articles are print publications to which I lack access. Those that exist online include inconsistent styling.
This page from the United States Mint, cited in the Double Eagle article, contains the capitalized "Double Eagle". A site-specific Google search appears to show predominance (but not exclusive use) of that form. Switching to "quarter eagle" or "half eagle" results in a more even mix. In all cases, the inclusion/omission of a hyphen also varies.
Are you aware of any reliable sources (online or not) that address this issue explicitly (as opposed to silently favoring a particular style)? —David Levy 08:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Not offhand.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
A Guide Book of United States Coins is a well-known reference, and should be fairly readily available. The Numismatist presumably has a style guide, and when they published my article in October, they accepted that way of doing things without comment I could ask the editor who worked over my article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Glancing at the page you link, the term that is capitalized is "2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagle Gold Coin", the name of a one-year product that the Mint marketed. That product is covered in Saint-Gaudens double eagle, but we don't give it the long name like that, which is proper as it doesn't seem to get much use off the Mint's website. I don't think that's much guidance. I note the Mint uses the term with the proper capping here. Coin World, if you look at the articles (some are online free) you will see they cap the way I do (just do a search). You probably can't access the current issue of The Numismatist but I'd be glad to send you screenshots of some of the pages if you send me an email.
I think the bottom line is that given that upwards of 30 numismatic FA's follow this formatting, not just in titles but also in prose, it would be more than a pain in the ass to switch to capitalization of denominations, i.e. Lincoln Cent, some fairly strong convincing would have to be in order. The obvious thing to do is to switch over those articles you mention above that I've told you I haven't gotten to yet. And the major reason I haven't gotten to Quarter Eagle and Half Eagle is that the Coronet series, which lasted from about 1838 to 1908, isn't terribly well written about, I don't have images of all major types, and so it waits. I don't tend to do work in advance, so I haven't been motivated to switch it to lower case. That seems the obvious thing to do now, so that the next person who notices that doesn't have to be referred to this discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Glancing at the page you link, the term that is capitalized is "2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagle Gold Coin", the name of a one-year product that the Mint marketed.
The page also contains the phrase "1907 Double Eagle".
I note the Mint uses the term with the proper capping here.
As I mentioned, Google searches for the relevant terms ("quarter eagle", "half eagle" and "double eagle") yield highly inconsistent results. For this reason, I agree that it doesn't amount to much guidance.
Coin World, if you look at the articles (some are online free) you will see they cap the way I do (just do a search). You probably can't access the current issue of The Numismatist but I'd be glad to send you screenshots of some of the pages if you send me an email.
I trust you. If that style predominates among reliable sources, it seems sensible to use it at Wikipedia.
I think the bottom line is that given that upwards of 30 numismatic FA's follow this formatting, not just in titles but also in prose, it would be more than a pain in the ass to switch to capitalization of denominations, i.e. Lincoln Cent, some fairly strong convincing would have to be in order.
Oh, I certainly don't advocate that generic terms like "cent" and "dollar" be capitalized in this context. I've questioned whether the "eagle" terminology is considered equivalent. If it's customarily treated as such, that's fine by me. —David Levy 13:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
It should be, because it is no different than a cent, or a dollar, in theory, it's just a denomination of coin, but as we don't use the terminology outside numismatics, I think error has crept in. Those of our ancestors who were in the US in the 1920s would have known what it meant immediately. I'm not fully satisfied because I don't like to tell people "take my word for it". I will be at the American Numismatic Association library in April and will enquire of the librarian. Sorry I overlooked "Double Eagle".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Middleham Hoard[edit]

Hi all, PatHadley (talk) here. I'm the Wikipedian-in-Residence at York Museums Trust (Project pages. I've been working with the numismatics curators on an upload of images of coins from the Middleham Hoard. The whole set can be found here: Category:Coins from the Middleham Hoard (23 out of 54 so far), I hope that they're useful for Numismatics articles! Unfortunately the hoard itself is lacking an article. I've just started the bones here: Articles for creation/Middleham Hoard and it would be great if you guys could help the curators (new editors) and myself get the article ready for submission. Also, if there are any ways in which we could help you achieve your goals for numismatics coverage on Wikipedia that would be great. You can find out a little about the collection on the blog and contact me with any queries. Look forward to working with you! PatHadley (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Update - All the coins are now uploaded! Category:Coins from the Middleham Hoard Enjoy! PatHadley (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you in a position to send copies of more recent articles on the hoard? The ones you list at the AfC are from 1994 and 1995. I can help, but I need materials to work from. Links, or emails, would work. You can't send attachments through the Wikipedia email system, but I can send you an email if you have "e-mail this user" activated, which I imagine you do, given your role as a Wikipedian-in-residence.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, yes! you can definitely email me. My official address here is: Thanks for responding - I hope we can get this (and other) articles created and improved. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of there being much in the way of more recent analysis of the Middleham Hoard as it was separated and (mostly) sold after the initial papers were written. I have linked to the two key papers already from the AFC start. There is a short paper on Civil War hoards here. I have contacted the numismatic curator to find out what else might be available. Looking forward to getting stuck into this! Cheers PatHadley (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Update - I was right, there are unfortunately not any more recent articles on the hoard. However, there is a book: A Little Barrel of Ducatoons (on Amazon) which a numismatics volunteer is currently using to write a blog-post. This will also incorporate her observations made while doing the digital photography. Hopefully, this will bring on some new observations (I'm particularly intrigued by the forgeries!). Cheers PatHadley (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten this. I will be home in a week or so and will look at it more then.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you PatHadley for this astounding work and thank you sysop Wehwalt for being present here. Krenakarore TK 18:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, though I rarely use the administrative tools around here, or at all actually. I guess I just hang around this Wikiproject, though I do wish we had more people involved. Anyway, I intend to set aside some time this spring to polish the article. I'll probably order a copy of that pamphlet from But right now, RL issues are very much interfering with my getting work done. So it will have to wait a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have scanned the booklet if you'd like to be emailed a copy? It's in a bit of a copyright grey area but if you were to use it for the article or other hoard articles that would be fantastic! Thanks PatHadley (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please do. Send me an email and I will reply and then you can send an attachment. I'll also enquire of my contacts at the American Numismatic Association library in Colorado Springs. At this stage, I'm just gearing up and getting sources together.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Saddle Ridge Hoard[edit]

This article could use some looking after, this hoard is an exciting find in the Numismatic world and is the largest ever of it's kind here in the United States. I expect there to be further information in the upcoming issue of Coin World. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll watchlist it but due to RL issues I'm not writing right now. I didn't see anything in the email for the current issue perhaps the next.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Yup it is in this week's issue of coin world. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Austria Silver Vienna Philharmonic[edit]

If anyone has noticed this article, Euro_gold_and_silver_commemorative_coins_(Austria), its contents are disorganized and very outdated. I've attempted to create a new article for the silver bullion coin (which is no longer a commemorative coin) and can be found here: [1]. The coin sold more than 41 million units over a 3-year stretch and similar articles exist such as the Chinese Silver Panda and American Silver Eagle. I believe notability was not the problem but apparently the context was. In fact the article for the Silver Panda coin is not much better in regards to context and even has no sources properly cited. I find it hard to believe that a person reading either article would have no idea what the context of it was in either case. I was wondering if a more experienced editor with knowledge in numismatics could help get the declined article's context a bit more clear so that it can get up and going. That way, other writers may expand upon on it and get it up to similar status as the articles for Silver Eagles, Silver Pandas, and other noteworthy silver bullion coins. Zup326 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to help but I don't have time to assist with writing right now. The main problem with your submission is that it is too short. If you were able to write a few sourced paragraphs about how the coin came to be, I think it would be accepted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
@Zup326: Disregard the editor that declined your submission. He's been the center of some scrutiny recently. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
In all fairness and reason, being too short is an unsound reason to decline an article. There are millions of stub articles -- many related to numismatics. I've created articles before with little more than a single sentence to get the ball rolling. There was never this submission system in the past so I'm not too familiar with how the submission process works as of yet. I do feel that if shortness has suddenly become a criteria as to whether an article should exist or not, then there are presently millions of articles which need deleting. Why have people edit and contribute when an article apparently needs to be fully written before inclusion? Zup326 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Thanks Chris how can I go about ignoring his decline notice and get the article submitted? Is it possible to delete his notice and simply begin the article? I've added a few paragraphs about the design history as as well as the obverse and reserve. Zup326 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Simply resubmit the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
@Zup326: Yes, resubmit as Wehwalt suggests. Feel free to notify me on my talk page and I'll review it. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Wehwalt and Chris. Your help and concern is appreciated. Zup326 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Numismatics and Electronic money[edit]

I've started a discussion about Numismatics relationship to 'Electronic money' on the Numismatics template talk page.

BTW - the Article alerts and Project Statistics overlap on my browser (Seamonkey) - making it hard to read. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Table in List of circulating currencies needs fixing[edit]

Parts of the table in List of circulating currencies are pure nonsense in their present form. Please see the Talk page there. --Thnidu (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Currencies generally[edit]

Zloty (Tintin) came up at WP:RFD because of a redirect. Having done my research I looked at a lot of European currencies and they seem to have a lot of inconsistencies in how they are named and redirected. I am no expert I am just short of money. But some have the name of the country, some don't, some like why does schilling redirect to Austrian schilling whereas shilling has its own article, guilder you would expect to go to Dutch guilder but doesn't, and it's a right old mess. Kenyan shilling existed but is not listed on the DAB, half-crown I am not sure. Krona is rightly a DAB but should have crown (British coin) listed on it. It's a mess, as both I an another editor said on RfD,, which is why I bring it here. What to do about it? I looked up WP:CURRENCY but it doesn't have much advice as far as titles for articles go, but I don't see why it has to be at Polish zloty instead of just zloty, the redirect, and is not properly hatnoted from either. Forint redirects to Hungarian forint. It is not as if there is any other country that calls it "forint", although it is probably from Florin, which then links to Dutch guilder for fairly obvious reasons. Why make it the longer way around? What is the policy here? Si Trew (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We follow WP:MOSPN, as there is no special policy here. To be candid, most of these articles were created ten years ago and without a common plan and there are inconstancies, and we don't have enough people to go around and fix them. I'm usually busy with US coins and rarely deal with other countries' currencies.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I think, then, maybe we should make attempt to make one at MoS. I am not a great fan of rules but the purpose is solely to help readers to find what they are looking for.
As an aside, my wife works in a retail bank and we collected all the specially minted Olympic coins for the London 2012 Olympics in about a couple of months – they are not what's it called "mint"? but the whole point of it was to collect them in circulation, like the U.S. five cent coins with each state on them some ten years ago, when I lived in the U.S. She had to go through thousands and thousands of 50p pieces to collect them all. I mounted them in a frame and gave them to my mum, who likes to collect coins – nothing valuable but likes to collect them just for the history really. Si Trew (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of coins and copy right[edit]


I have made some pictures of Dutch pocket change I want to use for articles and I was wondering if these images fall under some sort of copyright. I noticed some other images that claim they are own work but I am unsure if this is correct. Pindanl (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are no illustrations of them in the appropriate articles, they are most likely copyrighted, given we are 12 years on from E-day. I know there was a major deletion discussion at Commons a few years back.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not talking about Euro’s but Guilder change. Does that make a difference as they are no longer in circulation? I photographed the following coins:
  • Here are the rules for Netherlands copyright. They qualify as work of the Dutch government and are PD unless they reserved the rights (I do not know if they did). None of them qualify as PD as 70 years past the death of the creator of the design as all of these coins (according to my Standard Catalog of World Coins were first issued 1948 or later, and so we are not quite there yet. I'd upload them.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the information. I uploaded them and placed them in the articles. Pindanl (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Let me know if they try deleting them. Best to leave a note on my talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge for 1 cent (Dutch coin) and One cent coin (Netherlands)[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, 1 cent (Dutch coin), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — JFG talk 03:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Numismatics At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Swiss francs[edit]

In both the Helvetia and Coins of the Swiss franc articles, the portrait side of the coin is being referred to as the reverse of the coinage, and the denomination side is called the obverse. The uploaded photos are by and large organized similarly (the "range of Swiss coins" photo in the coin article displays the denomination of the coin, not the portrait). Is this a peculiarity (seeing as how there is some confusion with euros as to which is which) or is there a systematic mistake in terminology in these articles? MSJapan (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea you might want to check when and by whom it was done. I have a book on Swiss coins but am presently away from home. We don't have a lot of people active in this project.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

1889 Dictionary of Roman Coins[edit]

Check out the 738 illustrations of the 1889 Dictionary of Roman Coins, Republican and Imperial, which I uploaded to Commons: commons:Category:A Dictionary of Roman Coins. :) trespassers william (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A question on sources[edit]

Hi all, I'm writing the article on the Austro-Hungarian cruiser SMS Sankt Georg, and am having trouble digging up a reliable source to cover the commemorative coin that was struck for the ship - unfortunately it doesn't appear to be listed anymore on the Austrian mint website. Does anyone have any pointers on a website that passes the RS bar? I figured asking here would be faster than trying to wade through google hits ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not online but it should be in Krause's Standard Catalog of World Coins. A coin dealer may have it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I had wondered if I ought to post directly on your talk page ;) There are apparently copies in a couple of my local libraries - do you have any ideas beyond digging through the stacks? Is there an index somewhere that would point me in the right direction? Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it matters where you post, it's mostly just me here. What year is the coin? The catalog is alphabetical by country and then in increasing order of face value (so for euro coins it would list the 1 cent, 2 cent, 5 cent). I'm away from home at present and only buy a copy every four or five years. Go into a coin store if there's one near you and sneak a look to see what page it's on? The catalog is an annual, so the copies in the library may not have the coin if it is recent. There are also European references but as they are mostly not in English, I don't bother much for them, but collecting euro coins is popular. might have details.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't know if there were any other active editors in the field. The coin is from the 2005 series - I just checked the OSU-specific version of Worldcat and it looks like they only have editions from the 80s and 90s. I'll see what coin stores I can track down, though I won't have time to actually run by one until weekend after next at the earliest. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi, please can someone take a look at this FLC? I don't have a massive desire to fail three times. Thanks, Matty.007 16:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Featured list nomination for List of Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by Queen Victoria[edit]

Hello all. Just to let you know, I've nominated this article for featured list status. The nomination page is here - any input or reviews would be much appreciated. Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC).

Pre-decimal coinage[edit]

Hi all, I've recently been revising articles relating to pre-decimal British coinage, but I noticed an inconsistency. Some denominations (e.g. penny) have separate articles for the pre-1707 English coin and the post-1707 British coin, while others (e.g. threepence, sixpence) do not. Before splitting or merging any articles I would welcome any thoughts or opinions on which is the better solution. Retroplum (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like these kind of denomination articles. Honestly who considers that a penny of Henry II has any similarity to a penny of George VI just because of the denominations? Personally, I'd support the creation of a series of sequential articles with titles like "History of British coinage (1900-1976)" or "Medieval British coinage"...—Brigade Piron (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Well if you can write up a preliminary page, we can then comment on its effectiveness. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

CISCoins site?[edit]

An issue with which Wikiproject Numismatics members might be concerned has been brought up at Wikipedia:Help desk § How to get rid of the spam filter. Your input is welcome. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Zimbabwean Bond Coins.[edit]

Check this out; [2].

A new article for the Zimbabwean Bond Coins needs to be created, as these will be in circulation from 18 December 2014. - ( (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC))

@ I've just created it. To discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please post a numismatic notice on the talk page of Zimbabwean Bond Coins, and upload some photos of both sides of the coins. - ( (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

Just pinging Thnidu.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ghana pound and Cedi merger[edit]

There is proposal to merge the pound with the Ghana Cedi, I disagree with this as it is too confusing. Please comment on the page. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The articles should be retitled to Ghanaian pound and Ghanaian cedi. - ( (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

List of circulating currencies[edit]

The list of circulating currencies now sorts properly when sorted by name of currency. Previously, e.g., "Thai baht" sorted under T; now it sorts under B. See the Talk page there under Sorting the table by "Currency".

If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The status of private bank credit/dept and the money supply.[edit]

There is not law that grants private bank generated credit/debt the status of legal tender.

Private bank generated credit/debt does not expand the legal tender money supply.

From the Fed: "Credit dollars are a debt generated currency that is denominated by a unit of account. Unlike money, credit itself cannot act as a unit of account. However, many forms of credit can readily act as a medium of exchange. As such, various forms of credit are frequently referred to as money and are included in estimates of the money supply."

Why does Wikipedia propagate the false notion that credit/debt is money? (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think possibly you should ask at a Wikiproject devoted to economics. Remember, legal tender is what people must accept, they are of course free to accept forms of payment that are not a legal tender. I've seen people get "paid" in cases of liquor.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Cryptocurency task force[edit]

I would be very happy to create and manage a cryptocurrency task force as it is a growing market and needs attention on wikipedia TheMagikCow (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. We have so few people here just be bold.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Outdated articles[edit]

Many articles regarding the national variants of the euro coins (e.g. Belgian euro coins, German euro coins) are currently desperately outdated regarding the included mintage figures and some even regarding the current designs (e.g. Spanish euro coins). An urgent updated is really required for these articles. Tvx1 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Heritage Auctions[edit]

What happened to all the useful content that used to be here, particularly relating to lawsuits? Methinks somebody has paid for a cleanup. I am a coin dealer and rather than speaking my mind when someone asked what I thought of this litigious firm, all I had to do was send them to Wikipedia as this firm's REPUTATION, which is well known to many in the numismatic hobby and collectibles hobby generally, was adequately hinted at here. You are doing a disservice to many by allowing the former content to have been removed, and now rating it as a "low priority". This stinks. Badly. I don't know whether to log in or not for greater anonymity. (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC) so that's a signature? I would like to know the real names of people working in this Numismatics project before considering aiding the effort or speaking further on a SENSITIVE topic.

Can you point to where information used to be that is not there now? Nothing has come to my attention but I don't monitor articles I haven't worked on. You can register for an account, and you'll have a signature like mine or fancier if you like. As for my real name, it's not terribly secret, you can probably figure it out fairly quickly through google searches. I simply choose not to use it on here. I have no connection with any dealer.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
At a guess, I would say the complainant might be referring to this edit to Heritage Auctions? PatHadley (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
More than likely. First of all, we don't run the coin articles, this is a board to coordinate article improvement and to discuss matters of concern in numismatics. Second, it doesn't involve a coin, though Heritage certainly sells them. I would say it's something for editors who choose to interest themselves in that article to decide, like any article on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Create and populate Category:Coins by composition[edit]

I just created Category:Copper coins and Category:Bronze coins. Looking at commons:Category:Coins by composition, we have quite a few categories to create and populate; replicating the Commons category here seems like a valid idea, but I am not a numismatic expert - I'll leave it to the project members to continue this. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll make a point of adding it to any article I write or work with that suits, but regrettably I don't have much time to work on this. It seems relatively simple if you want to continue with it. You don't have to be an expert to know what coins are made of.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"Eagle" capitalisation[edit]

Most of the 'eagle' coin articles use capital E for Eagle, but there are some exceptions, such as Indian Head eagle, Turban Head eagle, Quarter eagle. I see this was dscussed last year, but with no clear resolution. Is there any consensus on capitalisation for these coins? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Denominations are usually not capitalised. However, due to pressure of other work, it is the sort of thing that doesn't get changed until a project member starts improving the article. "cent", "dollar", and "eagle" are not capitalised in almost all of the FA class articles that this project has improved (about fifty or so, I think).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Exchange rate[edit]

Hello, I need the exchange rate of 1 Piece of eight/Spanish peso (1825) to the USD (2015) for an article. I have read that it was 1/1, but that can't possibly be the case, since the average wage was around 25 pesos per year and the richest aristocrat only made 80,000 per year, which I suspect would translate to a few hundred millions in modern dollars. (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have read other sources stating that 1 pound = 1 peso. And according to this article:
3,000,000 (2008) USD = 15,000 (1710s) P
200 (2008) USD = 1 (1710s) P
Is that true? And was the rate the same in 1825? At the very least it is clear that the actual value was much more than the current price of silver. (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to be so slow. Until 1857, the Spanish colonial real was the usual circulating medium in the U.S. That is what you would spend, and likely get back in change. Most U.S. silver coins were profitably exported, until 1853, and were rarely seen in commerce. Since the U.S. dollar was modeled on the Spanish 8 reals piece (sometimes called a peso, then) there is some truth to what you say. The U.S. dollar probably would have gotten a premium, because it would have been, in practice, heavier as the Spanish coins would almost certainly have been worn, and they would have been concerned about the amount of silver in the coins. A lot of the U.S. coins that were exported circulated in Latin America, actually. But my opinion is that there's no really good shorthand way of translating prices from one era to another so far apart. In 1825, a middle class family might have had several servants, or even slaves, as far north as New York. What we spend money on, how we get it, and its very character (none of us have lived in an era when a bank might refuse to give you a gold coin for an equal face value in silver, assuming both were circulating at the time) have changed so much that I don't think a general answer is possible. You might want to post at one of the economics talk pages for more specialized help--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A new project with the Yorkshire Museum's numismatics collections[edit]

Hi all, I've just had a fantastic offer from the numismatics curator at the Yorkshire Museum (Andrew Woods - YMT Coins not very active on Wikipedia). You can already see some of the Museum's Numismatics collections in this Commons Category and there's more free-to-use imagery on the Online Collection. However, as the quality of the existing collections imagery varies (as it does on Wikipedia), Andrew is suggesting taking a new run of high-quality photographs specifically for Wikipedia. His idea is to target articles of rulers (Kings, Queens, Emperors) that currently lack a decent coin portrait. The Museum's collection covers Roman and British Isles currencies very well. Are there existing lists of such articles or would one of you like to create one? Ideally, this might be the first step in creating a lasting partnership. @BabelStone: you created great content for Middleham Hoard - perhaps you'd like to have first refusal on this? What do people think generally? Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pat, sounds like a fantastic offer, and targeting royal portraits does sound like an interesting approach, with scope for some new list articles as well as being of use in existing articles. I don't have the time to engage in a partnership with the museum, but would certainly be willing to help out where I can, both here and on Commons. BabelStone (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi BabelStone, no problem! Glad you like the idea. Thanks for offering your time - much appreciated! You might also be interested to note that the images in the Archaeology collections of York Museums Trust have grown in number and quality recently. Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
In the Middle Ages period, editors such as Ealdgyth, who have worked so extensively and well in that field, may have an interest. Thanks for the generous offer. I could, by the way, use images of a pre-1888 Maundy money twopence (dated between 1821 and 1887), and I see the museum has some in its collection. This would be for the article Royal Maundy, which would likely fit your category. Would it be possible to have images of the one in best condition?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Breezing through the Roman emperors we have a coin portrait on every one up to Maximinus II who doesn't have one. We are also missing Constans and Theodosius I. That's it up till 395 at least. Chuy1530 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Gold Solidus of Valentinian II
Gold Solidus of Valentinian II - obverse YORYM 1998 853.jpgGold Solidus of Valentinian II - reverse YORYM 1998 853.jpg
Obverse Reverse
The standard we'd hope to hit - 2.95MB images with detailed metadata
Excellent! Just looking through those three, they each have a 'Coins of xxx' category on Commons (Maximinus II, Constans, Theodosius I). However, the quality of these is not that high. There are lots of images through the glass of museum cabinets and some decent but small (sub 50KB) images from the Classical Numismatics Group. The example to the right shows the standard we'd hope to hit with YMT's images (click through for the metadata). I'm guessing that images of that quality would be useful on more than just the 3 emperors listed above? PatHadley (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Question, pre-2003 notes[edit]

I've just asked about this on the Series (United States currency) talk page. Repeating it here, in hopes someone can answer:

"I keep seeing mention of bills dated before 2003 not being accepted outside the USA. I've not found anything official on this. If anyone knows more, please add that information to this article! Thanks,"

Hordaland (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)