One comment here. If the images are accepted on Commons; the images should be moved over there. If the coins are Fair Use - they shouldn't be in galleries anyway. Once that is done, the gallery pages should be created on Commons - which is the appropriate place for this kind of stuff (this project could maintain them there). Then link from the pertinent articles through the use of the relevant Commons templates.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to discuss how the galleries should be broken down. I would like to bring the attention of everyone here and read a consensus because any method can seem arbitrary. At some point in history, "galleries of circulating ..." were created to address the issue of "the gallery could get large if you include all ancient coins". But I have to decline because circulation status can sometimes be hard to determine and it changes over time. If this is still a concern (e.g. to some people, no adjective means exhaustive), what about "gallery of modern ..." and "gallery of ancient ..." and medieval?
Geographic borders: Right now the galleries are partitioned by continent. But the number of currencies are uneven if partitioned this way and the number of images available on wiki are also uneven. I have this scheme on my hard drive. But I'm not sure if it is appropriate on wiki as it can be politically incorrect sometimes.
East Asia, including Mongolia
Southeast Asia
South Asia (no Pakistan)
Middle East (all the way to Pakistan to Israel)
Members of former Soviet Union
East Europe
Pre-2004 EU 15 members
Rest of Europe
Arabic speaking Africa
Former British West Africa
Former French West Africa + Cape Verde
Former French Central Africa
Rest of Africa that was not formerly British, including Sao Tome
Rest of Africa that was formerly British
North America that is physically connected to the continent
Caribbean
South America
Oceania, including Papua NG.
But besides political correctness, this partition scheme might not alleviate the issue of balance. The distribution of images on wiki could be very different from images on my or your hard drives. I have also taken the liberty of counting the numbers of sections on Gallery of banknotes. 16 in Africa, 8 in the Americas, 19 in Asia and Oceania, and 24 in Europe. I believe European coins and banknotes have to be broken down some how. But I can't think of a good way. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, circulating galleries can be hard to update, but it can be done at the same time as List of circulating currencies every time one changes. I think your cat scheme has a few to many break ups, but good start. How bout;
East Asia, including Mongolia and former Soviet Asia states, Southeast Asia, and South Asia (no Pakistan)
Middle East (all the way to Pakistan to Israel) - (does this include Egypt?)
East Europe to include Members of former Soviet Union
Hmm, I'm thinking in the lines of balancing. #3 would only includes the 3 Baltic states, Belarus, and Ukraine, while #1 will have many. #6 will be small too. Where do we place the 3 Caucasian countries and Turkey? And how do we properly name those regions? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
After careful thinking, I still think having "galleries of circulating ..." may be hard to maintain. Coin and banknote series update much more frequent than currencies. Pound sterling has been there for hundreds of years, yet notes and coins updates a few decades or so. So is Canadian dollar, Japanese yen, CHF. Not to mention the fact that there's usually a clear cut time point for currencies, while new notes and coins have "transitional periods". What should we make of the new 5000 South Korean won, the CA$10 with hologram, the new Vietnamese dong notes, and their predecessors?
As with partition scheme, I would really like to avoid any political issue. So I'm overthrowing my old proposal with this
I believe the 3 Caucasian countries should be placed in Eastern Europe. See User:Chochopk/Note. The COA and leaders of Armenia and Georgia look quite European. Some would argue that Azer is more Asian the other two. True, but heck, Azerbaijani manat banknotes were designed by the same guy who designed euro. I think most definition of Oceania include Australia. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me have my word in this discussion. "I would really like to avoid any political issue." So why is Czechia in the east of europe while Finland and Greece in the west? For me, it is no point to put escudo in the same gallery as krone or markka. One usually wants to view the money of a certain country, not a region. The best would be to sort money by country. You might think it would create too many articles/galleries, but visit Don's [1] or Ron's [2].Timur lenk17:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Another word to the geographic categorisation: let a nation decide where it feels to belong if any doubt in accurate categorisation. As a Hungarian, I don't feel happy to see Hungary categorized into Eastern Europe still reflecting the area of Soviet influence - especially not on the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.Timur lenk19:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I can totally see your point. I overlooked the part on Europe. But I don't have a solution now. Unlike Don's or Ron's gallery, the collection on wikipedia is still very incomplete. Many countries only have 1 image of coin or banknote. If national categorization is the way to go, then perhaps "Gallery of somehwere's curreny" would alleviate the problem of "too many galleries" somewhat.
I'm not sure who or why the galleries were created in the first place. But now I see some reasons. Occasionally, there are some random images from older times. It is one of the 10 in a series. Data are hard to find. Gallery can be a place holder until the proper data is found. In addition, some images do not fit in the current construct of standard table. Some images include all coins of a series, to demonstrate scale. Some are semi artwork like the ones on euro. Some might be a combination of the currency and the real object (pictured). Gallery would be a place for these. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, something just came to me like a lightening strike. How about using "Gallery of somewhere's currency", but only if the number of images gets large. If the number is small, say <= 4, then just embed the image gallery in the article itself. Otherwise, they are split off the same manner coin and banknote articles are. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters.
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T222:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. 207.160.66.12914:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello numismaticists, how do you all feel about the prospect of another project specifically focussing on the Australian honours system - would that step on anyones toes here? I posted a request for expressions of interest here. — Moondyne13:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
A very interesting area. I'm sure it wouldn't step on anyones toes. I think it may be alittle to specific a field to start an entire project around. You could definatly start the work you need, we could set you up a sub page of this project until sufficent numbers of interested people showup, and then at that time would be the best to start a new project. But, no ones gonna stop you either. :) Joe I15:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to have some templates for obverse/reverse coin images. There are already templates for coins, but those are like full catalogue entries; they are too detailed and large for some uses. What I envisage are templates useful for inclusion of thumbs in text. I suggest the following matching templates with the images side-by-side:
template to include two images (eg. obverse and reverse) with a single common legend.
template to include one double-image (ie with both obverse and reverse) with a single common legend
single-image and double-image templates as above but having three legends: an obverse, reverse, and global legend. This could be the master as long as no space was used for
The templates could also be used when comparing two different coins.
An example of where I am using images that I think could be better presented using the templates suggested is the Roman Republican coinage page.
OK then, here is my prototype for the left side and right side versions (I know they are just tables, but first the design, then I'll figure out templates.). I have tried to stick as close as possible to the standard image layout. There are two versions because they are padded differently.
* Is this what we want?
* Should the O: and R: links be part of it or should I make it more general?
* Do I need to make a middle version or will we insist on left & right?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
The first Roman silver coin, 281 BC; Crawford 13/1
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
The first silver coin minted at Rome, 269 BC; Crawford 20/1
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Someone raised a concern about providing precise exchange rate. The discussion is at Template talk:Exchange Rate. After months of watching IP users doing it the wrong/bad way. I'm leaning toward removing the rate all together and leave the external links. Please let me know what you think. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish I could bot it, but I'm just too busy on something else and in real life. So if the consensus (yeah... 3 people) is to remove the rate and keep the link. My next question is whether or not to keep it at its current location, or move it in the infobox. I've seen currency article on wiki of other languages. And they put the rate inside the infobox. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi coin fans, can you take a look at the article on Oregon Centennial Tokens? This was created by an editor a year who promised to come back and fix it up, but never did. It now has the status of a contested prod (the prod tag being placed by me) and I am tempted to put it up for AfD but I'm hoping someone who knows something about the subject will fix it up instead. I'm not sure about the criteria for numismatics articles, but some of this seems to be only of interest to other coin collectors and not to the general reader (and kind of a how-to guide). If it could be made more encyclopedic, that would be helpful. I have nothing personal against the article, I actually find it an interesting bit of Oregon history, but not sure this has wide enough interest to merit an encyclopedia article. Right now the only Google hits seem to be Wikipedia mirrors and eBay want requests. Thanks! Katr6718:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You must get written permission for a GFDL use. You can go here to start. I do have the permission from [aboutcoins.org] to use all images, just forgot to add it. Joe I06:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Lebanese livre
I'm aware that about a year ago a discussion was held about using the name Lebanese pound vs. Lebanese livre in reference to the official currency of Lebanon. The more I look at it however, the more I disagree with the conclusion that was reached. The conclusion that was apparently reached was to use the French translation of the Arabic lira. This doesn't make much sense to me for a few reasons:
Livre is just the French translation of lira, while pound is the English translation. The banknotes are printed in French and Arabic, but French isn't the official language of Lebanon, and this isn't the French Wikipedia, so both the Arabic lira and English pound make more sense to me.
Livre isn't the common term used in reference to the currency. A quick Google search for "Lebanese pound" returns 1.6 million results, while "Lebanese lira" returns 18,000, "Lebanese livre" returns only 1,100, and the correct french translation "livre Libanaise" returns 46,000.
As already noted, the ISO 4217 lists the currency as Lebanese pound, though that reference obviously isn't infallible.
The Lebanese central bank website[3] makes heavy use of the terms pound, Lebanese pound, and LBP in the English translations of its laws and publications.
I don't particularly have a preference between lira and pound, but either seems more appropriate than the French livre. I believe that while most things on the English Wikipedia use the English translations, this WikiProject's style guidelines state that the native word should be used instead of the translation (in this case, lira). George Saliba12:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the most commonly used term by far in English appears to be Lebanese pound, and on most Wikipedia articles this would be the preferred style, but according to the Numismatics style guidelines we should "Use the local name for the denomination even if there's an English translation (e.g., Czech koruna, not Czech crown)." Now granted, this bullet point is a sub-point of currencies "not listed at the ISO 4217 page", but since the decision was made at some point to divert from the norm and not use the ISO 4217 term Lebanese pound, my only point was that Lebanese lira was more accurate than Lebanese livre (a muddled French translation) - not specifically that Lebanese lira was better than Lebanese pound, and so I've updated the article as such. If people would like to have the discussion on using the ISO 4217 term Lebanese pound versus the current term Lebanese lira, I'm entirely open to that as well. I'm not sure why the article was named Lebanese livre over Lebanese pound in the first place, other than the fact that the French translation was printed on the banknotes and the English translation was not. George Saliba05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
One area of expertise of mine is in the areas of "art medals" — which is unusually and awkwardly styled in Wikipedia as "artist's medals". Although it's traditionally a part of exonumia, "Artist's medals" is currently a separate page under the "Numismatics" category, although the related "Orders and decorations" is a subcategory under "Exonumia". Furthermore, "Medal" and "Medallion" are separate pages under "Exonumia".
I would like to suggest a restructuring of Exonumia along the following lines: Making the article "Medal" a subcategory under "Exonumia", with "Orders and decorations", "Art medals" (renamed from "Artist's medals"), "Prize medals", and perhaps "Devotional medals" as separate subcategories under "Medal". I think this would be more helpful to the typical reader who wouldn't be familiar with the specialist's term "Orders and decorations". Starting them at "Medals" first would clarify the distinction and better guide them to what they're looking for. Comments? Askari Mark | Talk05:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know much about exonumia, but find the current structure annoying and confusing. One of the problems, which I don't know enough about to fix is that Category:Orders and decorations currently contains some things that are not exonumia. Apparently, it's only exonumia if there's a physical medal associated, which makes sense. It's all mixed together now though, and I don't know enough to split them (but I tried tagging everything under Category:Exonumia, and got some complaints so I stopped). Also, some categories contain awards and decorations together which includes some awards in the sense of military/government awards which often belong in Exonumia, but it also contains some subcategories for entertainment awards, which are completely different in my mind. I'd love to see this area cleaned up and reorganized, and your ideas sound like a great start. If you get to a point where there's some clear distinction between Exonumia and not-Exonumia in the categories, let me know, and I can use User:WatchlistBot to tag the articles, making them easier to keep track of. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Exonumia articles for the current, woefully inadequate list. Although I can't promise I'll be prompt, since I'm not around much anymore. Ingrid00:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone currently involed puts alot of effort into exonumia stuff, so I'm sure it's gonna need some work, especially categories and stuff. Go for it, have fun :) Anything you need, just ask. Joe I03:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
currency article names (again)
I'm not really here, just updated the watchlist (finally). I noticed two page moves which were probably inappropriate. The articles are now at East German Mark and Spanish Escudo and probably need to be moved back, but I'm not around enough to follow-up if someone has a problem with it. Ingrid00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What was concluded at Talk:German mark was that units in the article names remain lower case, while units in the articles are capitalized. I implemented the resolution long time ago, including all kinds of Thalers. Apparently, I missed East German mark. Spanish Escudo should be Spanish escudo without questions. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Coin and banknote article naming scheme (long over due topic)
Currently, the style guide, such articles should be named Coins of Somewhere' and Banknotes of Somewhere. But this is never implemented, as I will demonstrate:
I propose a slight modification to the standard: "Coins of the [currency article name]" and "Banknotes of the ...". The immediate impact is to split Australian coins into pound and dollar system. And my proposal also suggests that when the word "banknotes" is not appropriate for things like the Chinese customs gold unit, Hungarian adópengő, treasury bills, etc, then change the word "banknotes" to "paper money".
User:Timur lenk proposes using "paper money" on everything that is bill or note. I can't speak for him/her exactly, but I think the reason is to ensure consistency and the title of Albert Pick's famous catalog is named "Standard Catalog of the World Paper Money".
My reason is that "paper money" may be misleading on currencies that are actually made of polymer. There are a number of those among the modern currencies. And also, while most head of government articles are named "Prime minister of Somewhere" except Chancellor of Austria and Chancellor of Germany, and that's not a problem.
Timur lenk also wants to take one step further by splitting currencies that have the same name, but are actually distinct as a result of redenomination, such as the recent Zimbabwean dollar and Romanian leu, to something like "Paper money of the Romanian leu (1952)", "Coins of the Romanian leu (2005)". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
For several years I was the main world coins and banknotes "answer man" on a numismatic forum, and I have to say that I have never seen the phrase "Coins of the [currency article name]" used by anyone before. Frankly, it would look unnatural to most native English speakers. An American would typically use the following terms thusly:
"Money" refers to any or all types of circulating legal tender.
"Currency" is most often used colloquially to mean "paper money" only, but its technical use as a term for money in general is widely understood.
"Bill" is typically used to refer to a (paper) "dollar bill" of whatever denomination; foreign banknotes are usually referred to as "notes" (e.g., "pound note", "euro note", etc.). Otherwise, a "bill" refers to a list of charges to be paid.
"Banknote" is rarely used in every-day American English; "paper money" is the common term. This is why the Krause banknote catalogs are entitled "Standard Catalog of World Paper Money". "Paper money" is also generic for all non-coin money, regardless of the material of which it is made; in fact, the U.S. dollar is not made of paper per se, but a kind of linen rag. The term "banknote" would almost always be recognized as a reference to paper money, and a phrase like "the U.S. $20 banknote" would be understood to mean a "20 dollar bill".
Accordingly, I would suggest using the term "banknotes" where only circulating legal tender paper money is concerned, and "paper money" be used as the generic term for banknotes and other forms of non-coin currency is addressed.
I would recommend that titles like "Currency of XYZ" or "Coins of XYZ" be reserved for categories, while articles use "XYZian banknotes". This adds not only consistency, but tends to cover the whole range of likely search names. Askari Mark | Talk21:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Askari Mark, how do you address the case where a countries has had many currencies, like Germany (Mark, east Mark, Reichsmark, Rentenmark, or South Korea (old won, hwan, new won)? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It would depend on what the article covers. Under the category of "Coins of Germany", you might have an article on "German Mark coins" which covers all the different issue types, or you could have a separate article for each subtype, e.g., "German Reichsmark coins" — which might actually be better as two articles: "German Reichsmark coins (Weimar)" and "German Reichsmark coins (Nazi)". Depending on whether you treat East Germany as a separate country as an issuer, theirs might be "East German Mark coins" or "German Mark coins (East Germany)" or maybe "German Mark coins (DDR)". In the Korean case, one option might be "Korean Won" and "South Korean Won" (and thus "South Korean Hwan"); another might be "Korean Won (Imperial)" and "Korean Won (ROK)". Personally, I like to capture the issuer as much as possible since this also helps when a country has several governments issuing the denomination over the longer course of time.
I think a more challenging issue is when you have a "multi-national" currency like the euro, Central American Republic real or escudo, or the denarius, which have been issued by multiple countries. Colonial issues are easily handled under their owner, but I'm still wrestling with how to categorize the multi-state currencies. They will probably have to be in a separate multi-national category. Another issue arises with articles that deal with the overall story of a particular currency that has been used by many nations, like the thaler or denarius. These will likely have to be in another category; the article title would be something like "History of the thaler". Askari Mark(Talk)02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
In history, the monetary events are often not in sync with political events. For example, adding the factor of government form may result in:
Monetary
Government
Your proposed result
Pound
Monarchy
Pound (monarchy)
Provisional gov
Pound (provisional gov)
Dollar (=100 pounds)
Dollar (provisional gov)
Republic
Dollar (republic)
Ruble (=100 dollars)
Ruble (republic)
IMHO, let's just use the name and the value of the currencies. My original proposal would render "Coins of the Utopian pound", "Coins of the Utopian dollar", and "Coins of the Utopian ruble". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was only thinking of using the government as a disambiguator in those cases where it was needed — and that only if folks want to write separate articles to that level. If not, then those individual government issues and changes would merit sections or subsections on their own, as how these changes were handled is part of the history and lore of the currency.
I would expect that how much an article on a specific currency covered might well be determined by how extensive the resulting image galleries would be. For countries with extensive issues over longer periods of time (like the U.S., Germany or China), these articles could become quite unwieldy in length, not to mention time to download.
In fact, one thing that needs to be addressed is what constitutes a country. Is East Germany a separate nation from "Germany"? If so, should the pre-unification German states be each treated as an individual country? If not, then "German currency" article might prove encyclopedic in length on its own right. And there is also the problem of Confederate currency, where they seceded, establishing themselves as a new nation, and the Union which denied their right to separate and was fighting to reunite the country.
Perhaps what needs to be addressed first, before deciding on article/category naming conventions, are these questions of what constitutes a separate country, and just how much of a nation's issues should or can be comfortably handled in a single article (and what length/memory size that should be). Askari Mark(Talk)04:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If we use the naming convention Timur lenk and I co-proposed, then these problems you mention will go away. There seems to be an common understanding of what constitues a currency here, and it is somewhat independent of government form. This discussion didn't start with the multiple choice of (German currencies, Coins of the German mark, German reichsmark coins (Weimar)). The original question was a multiple choice of (Banknotes of the German mark and fall back to Paper money of the German mark when bills include non-banknote, or Paper money of the German mark all the way for all currencies). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, great to see the help of a native speaker. As I see we are to create a long term naming scheme and categorization scheme.
We should use article names which are not misleading, easy to search (this can be replaced by redirections if necessary), encyclopedic and can be consistently used. I suggested paper money since it includes every banknotes, state notes and treasury notes, provisional and emergency notes. The best would be a hypernym, a concept including all these. Maybe simply note would be a good choice, too. ((The proper word in German is Geldschein, in Latin notum pecuniarium, in Hungarian pénzjegy - all these translate to English I choose paper money since it is used on catalogs I've seen (including Pick's). Choosing the right word is question of language accuracy and professional accuracy.
I can't decide which is the better arrangment: Utopian dollar coins or Coins of the Utopian dollar. This is question of grammar, a native speaker should decide it.
We have to decide whether the basis of categorisation is a country or a currency. A currency does not strictly bond to a country. That's why I would make the Highest category Utopian dollar or Romanian leu. Then would come Romanian leu (1952) and Romanian leu (2005). We can even split these into Romanian leu (1952) - socialist government and Romanian leu (1952) - democratic government (if needed).
Ordo - coins/notes of a currency system (notes of the Romanian leu (1952))
Familia - state notes/banknotes of a currency system
Genus - series
Species - note/coin type (same legal status, same value, same time in circulation)
Subspecies - note/coin variations
Naturally, I think it is necessary to create comprehensive articles for a country's money, but this shouldn't be higher order than the above.Timur lenk23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Just dropping in without reading all of the previous arguments. I want to mention something that came up when I proposed and implemented using Coins of X consistently for categories (note that it's no longer consistent, since I haven't kept up with it and new categories have been created). Anyway, sometimes you run into problems using adjectival forms. For example, American is the official adjectival form for United States, but it's also the adjectival form for the North and South American continents. Also, the United Kingdom is smaller than what is covered by British (British includes the Channel Islands, which are not part of the UK). There might be other issues as well, but that's what comes to mind immediately. Just something to consider. Ingrid03:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, I don't insist on either "paper money" or "banknote". But for some reason, this discussion keeps deviating from my original question..... --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What about "note" than? There should be a poll on the name and on the naming variations, I think. Let's collect the porposes first.
My proposal is note for any kind af paper and polymer money issued by a bank, state or provisional government etc.
In the other question I can't really decide, since the Coins of the Romanian leu (1952) sounds good for me and seems to be easy to use universally, but I am not a native speaker to decide if it is corrct English.Timur lenk20:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Two original proposals were
"Banknote", but fall back to "Paper money" only when banknote is inappropriate
Wikipedia's coverage of national orders, decorations, and medals is pretty disjointed and disorganised. Some articles have had an awful lot of work put into them (eg. Order of the Garter and other British chivalric orders, most of these are now FA), others have patchy coverage (eg Canada), and others have little meaningful coverage at all (eg Australia). Many editors have put in fine individual efforts in this topic, but one thing is certain, Wikipedia's coverage of this topic is far from definative.
Part of the problem, I think, is that there is no central, coordinating body. Looking through a few Orders and medals articles, we see some which are flagged up as under the Numismatics WikiProject, others under the Military history WikiProject, and others under are the wing of individual, national WikiProjects. Orders and medals certainly come within the orbit of each of these, but it is a topic which is very much overshadowed by their main focuses, coins and banknotes, military history, and national topics respectively. As a result coverage is patchy, there is no consensus of style, medal-related categorisation is a mess, even simple things like pictures are overwhelmingly absent.
What I would like to propose for discussion is the establishment of a central project to deal solely with this topic, hiving off this area from these other WikiProjects. This would provide us with a means by which to evolve the consensus necessary to get some sort of uniformity of coverage. Any views?
There is certainly a natural overlap with respect to at least military orders and decorations. That's only a small part of medals overall, though to date it has been the most worked on. Nominally, medals as a whole are exonumia, but many O&D collectors have no interest in the larger part of medal collecting. As a member of both the Numismatics and Military History WikiProjects, I can say that I certainly have no problem with establishing a "WP:Medals". I'm not sure how many people would need to be interested to make it viable, though.
I am currently working up a categorization schema for Exonumia as a whole, per Ingrid's request above, and that may prove of help here as it will need to be done for medals anyway, whatever the outcome. (Of course, it's going slow with all the holiday hustle and bustle....) Askari MarkTalk04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, there's certainly overlap - campaign medals and military decorations are very much tied up with the relevant conflicts, and all are examples of exonumia. It's just that without a central forum to establish broad consensus, we end up with the patchy coverage, poor structure, etc that we have now. The everyday focus of Numismatics and Military history is pretty much away from Orders and medals, so, despite their overlap, this area is very much neglected. You put your finger on a vital point though - interest from other editors. We really need 4 or 5 committed editors to get this going - after that we'll see how things play out.
I'd be interested in your thoughts re. optimal categorisation. As far as medals go, I've tried to implement a structure of my own at the Category:Orders and decorations level downwards. It's been tricky, sorting through the mass of articles and vestigial categories, especially without being able to point to clearly expressed consensus. Category:Orders and decorations of New Zealand is the pretty tidy though (mostly because I started it from scratch). A decent basic structure for each nation's Orders/medals?
I have been debating whether (for the purposes of WP:Num) to leave Medals in Exonumia or elevate it to the same level. Frankly, medals have been around longer than almost everything else in the category of exonumia — and it's not like there's a consensus definition of what all the term "exonumia" actually covers. I like your approach to organizing O&D because it's simple. More than any other area, it's country-specific, so that's the best way to organize it. I'm not sure what to do about badges, though. Some military history-oriented O&D collectors like to think of O&D as "different" from "medals" and badges are more "out there" to even them. Almost nothing has been done with the subject of badges (other than a very weak article), and I know almost nothing about that collecting area. Any thoughts? Askari Mark(Talk)04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting ideas there. I'll make it clear straight away that I only have a passing familiarity with some of these categories (ie. Indian Peace Medals), my primary focus is on national Orders and medals.
So, dealing with Orders and medals first. I'd be strongly inclined to move this category out of exonumia altogether. I would suggest moving it up a level or two in the category hierarchy, perhaps up to Category:Cultural history. This would place it on a level with categories such as Category:Flags, Category:Heraldry, and Category:Philately. I really do think that national honours systems are of sufficient notability in their own right not to be merely classed as 'exonumia' - they are important manifestations of national identity.
At present, some of the Orders and decorations sub-categories include such things as Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada or Category:Polish literary awards. I would strongly advocate moving these out (Category:Awards seems to be their natural home) - keep Category:Orders and decorations solely for state/national awards. In fact, perhaps this category is better being renamed? What about National honours systems? At the end of the day, it is the system that is most notable, not its components.
Now, as far as Category:Medals goes, I rather agree with your layout. A few points though. I think that the Indian peace medals, as awards of the state, are best dealt with in the US Orders and decorations category. Category:Commemorative medals is good but, again, those commemorative medals which eminated from the state should be dealt with in the appropriate national Orders and decorations category (eg. the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal or the Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal). I'd perhaps have two distinct categories for Sporting medals and for Prize medals - sporting prizes are perhaps significant enough to warrant their own treatment? Finally, I think that Category:Badges perhaps has a claim to be put in Category:Exonumia rather than with medals.
Definitely a lot to chew on there, Xdamr! Category:Cultural history was one I had not come across before. I see no basic problem with your proposed structure other than that Category:Coins belongs beneath Category:Numismatics instead of under Category:Exonumia, and that badges have traditionally been collected under O&D.
Some thought needs to be given to having a Category:National honours systems, though, for I would expect to include much more than orders and decorations. In fact, I would think that it would draw numerous prizes, awards, distinctions (e.g., “national poet laureate”), etc. under its umbrella — and I haven't a clue who all that might affect. If you're considering it as a synonym just for O&D, you might google the two terms “national honours” and “orders and decorations” to see which one should prevail; otherwise, O&D would be a subcategory of “national honours systems.”
I think the main difference between our two approaches (which overlap, but do not exactly coincide) to “handling” O&D is due to our coming at it from different perspectives. I have noticed that some O&D collectors don't perceive a relationship between it and exonumia, whereas for some medal collectors the distinction is trivial (one is just more be-ribboned and be-pinned than the other). The difference is rooted in the fact that one side comes at O&D from their purpose — as awards of honour — while the other comes at them from the perspective of their art — or at least the art that goes into their design. In fact, the real numismatic side of O&D is in the medals themselves (and those who design them); where an appointment or citation is awarded but no “medallic ornament,” then it's not a matter of exonumic (and, hence, numismatic) interest. That's probably where Ingrid's bot went wrong trying to label all O&D articles “numismatic.”
You are absolutely right re Category:Coins not being exonumia, I don't quite know what I was thinking of; surely if anything qualifies as numismatics coins do!
As far as 'National honours' goes, you are right, I am looking at it as a synonym for 'Orders and decorations' - ie awards conferred by the state for national service. I think that accolades such as poet laureate (which is more of an office than an award) quite happily belong in the awards category. This is probably an area which requires futher exploration though.
On the whole we have a decent, workable structure here. I'd be happy to help implement it as and when we start off.
I have gone ahead and created a WikiProject which is dedicated to this area (the Orders, Decorations, and Medals WikiProject. If anyone would like to help with sorting this area out, whether by writing new articles, improving existing ones, or sorting out article structure and categorisation, we'd be pleased to see you over there.
Octopus card has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
As 1 January2007 approaches, the day Slovenia joins euro, we must prepare for the change on Wikipedia. I am pre-emptively making a list so that we can make the change quickly and minimize edit conflicts. We can show to the other Wikipedians that members of this projects take things seriously! And we can show the world that genuine volunteers are making Wikipedia as accurate as possible (and quickly).
Acording to what Nightstallion put on my future currency changes page the tolar and euro will circulate together until March 1. This can't be varified beacuse the link no he provided no longer works. – Zntrip21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That date seems reasonable even without references. It would be a fair statement to say that tolar and euro will co-circulate between 1/1 and 2/28, and euro will have "higher" status. Zntrip, are you suggesting that some of the changes will not be effective until 3/1? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
What I mean is that the tolar and the euro will both circulate untill 1 March. The euro will be intoduced on 1 January and the tolar will be no longer be legal tendar on 1 March, so the dual circulation period will be from 1 January to 1 March. ¿Comprende? ;) – Zntrip01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. The euro will become legal tender on 1 January. However, cash payments in tolars will be allowed until including 14 January, when the tolar will cease to be legal tender. Afterwards all payments will have to be made with euros. Tolars will be, however, exchanged into euros free of charge at all bank branches in Slovenia until 1 March. Afterwards they will only be exchangable at the Bank of Slovenia. See here. edolen115:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I notified the 3 image makers above, something I should have done 2 weeks ago. I will start the list from bottom up. If I'm not mistaken, the change occurs at midnight local time, so that's
I wanted to help a bit, as well, but since I won't be able to access the internet at the specific time, I made a few minor changes in places which don't hurt if they're updated now. Hope that's okay. :) —Nightstallion(?)12:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I made some of the trivial changes on some articles already, hope you don't mind. By the way, someone already made some changes in the Eurozone article, but he only deleted Slovenia from the countries which will join the Eurozone and added it to the Eurozone countries. He also made some minor changes (12 members to 13 members). I am not sure if this event requires more coverage or if anything else should be changed in the article, so if someone could check it through I'd be most grateful. Oh, and there is a problem with the table of currencies inside ERMII, I don't know how to fix it, if someone could fix that as well. Thanks and a happy New Year to everyone! edolen117:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The "article" on Japanese money is currently a disambiguation page, linking only to yen, Japanese mon, and ryō. I am amazed to discover that there is no single article discussing the full history of the emergence and development of the monetary economy in Japan. I know that much of the information can be found scattered across a number of pages, including these, rice brokers, and a number of others. But as of right now, Economy of Japan is purely contemporary information, giving no early modern or pre-modern history, Bank of Japan the same, and Yen seems to be largely if not exclusively a discussion of the coins themselves from a numismatics perspective, not a "history of economics" one. What do others think? Is this something worth pursuing, and is anyone interested in helping? Thank you. LordAmeth23:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Should Money be part of the project? I'm leaning towards no. I was doing some assessment (and plan to run User:WatchlistBot shortly to get the images out of Unassessed again), and noticed Automatic cash handling, which doesn't seem like it should be in our project, right? I have so much trouble telling with areas that I'm not personally interested in. Ingrid18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Individual items used as money should, as coins and notes are in our area. ATM's and such, I see no need for those. Now maybe those automatic counters the FED uses, maybe? Joe I22:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Infobox coin
I'm working on merging ({{Infobox Coin}}, {{Infobox coin2}}), ({{Infobox Note}}, {{Infobox Banknote}}). And I stumbled upon the parameters "Denomination", "Country", "Value", "Unit". Currently they are used this way:
Denomination: name of coin such as "Peace Dollar". If there's no special name, fall back to a generic amount like "One dollar" or "Fifty cents"
Country: the country
Value: numeric value in terms of the main unit (usually), such as "0.5" for 50 cents
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker16:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've been working on Roman Republican coinage, have added a list of republican moneyers (which I intended to eventually point to many individual pages for individual moneyers), and am now drafting Ancient Technology of Coinage. I also have plans for some kind of article on economics/ usage of ancient coinage. What exactly did you have in mind? I could provide some help in imperial coinage, but much less than in republican. I would certainly like input in the republican area.
Curtius01:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The template states matter-of-factly that images of American currency are not eligible for copyright and are therefore in the public domain, which is contradicted by the US Mint's own website. Someone might want to look into this and correct the tag. ~ trialsanderrors09:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that L$ is not legal tender anywhere and is usable only in a virtual world, it doesn't stop us from adding to {{dollar}}. There are 3 categories in that template that may fit: conceptual, fictional, private. I just don't know which one fits better. There is also "rupee (The Legend of Zelda series)" in {{rupee}} too. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Slavish copies of public domain coin artwork copyright ineligible
You should consider using the template Template:PD-Bridgeman or something similar as per the Bridgeman v. Corel ruling. Many pictures of coins on Wikipedia are nothing more than straight-on photographs or scans of public domain coins/coin artwork (e.g. Roman coins). As such, they aren't eligible for copyright. Nathan J. Yoder08:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Australian Coins
Theese coins really need work on, Theese include:
Australian pound - ½d·1d·3d·6d·1/-·2/-·5/-·10/-·£1·£5·£10·£20·£50·£100·£1000
Australian Dollar
1¢·2¢·5¢·10¢·20¢·50¢ round·50¢·$1·$2·
I also need help with the images, i have most of theese coins, almost all of the commerative AUD and Australian Pound but everytime i go to upload an image the format type is incorrect, and do i have to cut them out? I can do some but im not very wikicombatible
IAmTheCoinMan12:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It needs lines in between them and i think it is meant to be a different colour. I also don't want that box around the image. Cheers IAmTheCoinMan00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
the "thumb" in the image brackets takes care of the box around images. As for other things, someone else will be along shortly. :) Joe I01:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I edited the above table directly. Please see the history if you're interested in the diff. Let me sum it up:
Start the table with {| class="wikitable" so that the table has borders and the color theme is consistent with most other tables
Gold standard has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Australian Article Name
I was wondering what's the standard to name articles on coins and banknotes.
Becuase with the Australian Coins and Banknotes its hard.
Five cent coin (Australian) is the article on the 5 cent coin from Australia and One dollar coin (Australian) is the article on the 1 dollar coin from Australia, But problems arise when doing the pre-decimal coins. Becuase Shilling coin (Australia), Penny coin (Australia) and Sixpence coin (Australia) to me, sounds incorrect. The article about the florin is currently at Florin (Australian coin). I think all the coins should be changed to the format of the florin. ie. One cent (Australian coin).IAmTheCoinMan23:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, naming of individual denomination has not been discussed. If you go to the project page, and scroll down to "Numismatic navigational templates", you'll find national navigational templates such as {{AUD}} to {{Obsolete U.S. currency and coinage}}. The American, Canadian, and British articles are more developed. But naming is still a mess. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thats three different types, do we call them notes or bills, i think notes, and redirect from bill, and do we have a - in them? But a problem also arises becuase some currencies don't have articles for each of their notes, Such as The Euro, Should we try to create an article for each?
And i also found another type; English Three Farthing coin
While I don't have a strong preference on any of the proposals, there are a few issues I'd like to point out
Spell out the number (fifty) or Hindu-Arabic (50)? I personally prefer 50 because these articles would cluster closer on Special:Allpages.
Not all denominations have words. 10 cents may be "dime" in the U.S. and Canada. But that's not the case in most currencies.
Euro could be tricky because there is no national adjective for euro. Imagine this: 2 euro (euro coins), or 50 cents (Eurozone coins). Current naming is 2 euro coins and 50 cent euro coins.
Pound sterling. British coin/note? English coin/note? U.K. coin/note? It is complicated. They're Bank of England notes, but only the 1 pound note is legal in Scotland. These complexity can be found at verious articles.
3 banks plus the government in Hong Kong may issue banknotes, and they are all legal tender.
Ok, well, I think it just got to complicated for me, but I think it does need to be solved before it gets worse. There's all kinds of 5 cent, half dollar, penny, dollar country type articles popping up. Never an easy way, huh? Joe I03:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The article Cádiz is under the tag of this wikiproject. I would appreciate your revision in order either to remove the tag or to add some relevant numismatic information that could justify its inclusion. (Perhaps it is because the popular Gaditan tango Aquellos Duros Antiguos[4]???)
I actually reverted a bot adding the tag a few months ago, but I noticed that the article is in Category:Ancient mints. That's why it's automatically been tagged for WikiProject Numismatics. It's not really expounded on in the article, but, hey, that's what Wikiproject coordination is for. — Rebelguys2talk17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This article needs to be renamed. "Dollar" should be lower case. But what about the rest? "Hutt River dollar"? "Hutt River Province Principality dollar"? The microstate's official website uses "Principality of Hutt River", but the use of the word "Province" is also frequent. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Japanese Peso
There's no mention of the Japanese peso at Peso. However, I took a photo yesterday of a Japanese 10 pesos note. Should I upload it to Wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.89.14.49 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
This peso was issued in the Philippine during WWII under Japanese occupation. Japanese government-issued Philippine fiat peso has the information you might be looking for. There are two series of such peso. The image you provided is the first series. I'm sorry to say that the note probably doesn't worth much. But it is still a nice piece of souvenir. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Order of the Thistle FAR
Order of the Thistle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Million dollar coin
Has anyone seen this article yet? (I found it at coinforum.org). It looks interesting. Just thought I'd share. Happy editing! Johann...[T...C]01:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose making an adjustment to the infobox for currency related articles to show the estimated value against other major currencies say limiting it at the top 5 currencies. Whenever I hear a person signed an agreement for 500,000 Francs or Pounds, I only really want to know what that equals in dollars when I click on the word. I'm sure other editors feel the same way about foreign currencies. I commented here becuase I figured I'd get more response but I also commented on the template talk page. Quadzilla9903:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a bit of history to this. I've thought about this before. But then I decided to put exchange rate at Template talk:Exchange Rate, which has all the links to the current rate. Since it is so big, it wouldn't fit well in the infobox. That template also had the ability to show an "exchange rate snapshot", which is just an arbitrary date, and the rates on that day. But then after Template talk:Exchange Rate#Principle of quoting exchange rate on an arbitrary date, exchange rate snapshot is removed for these reasons. If the rate of an arbitrary date is given, it may be subject to market volatility. It will also invite random anonymous editors to update the rate at random interval. If someone update the exchange rate of euro/USD on the euro article, and then a few hours later in the same day, someone else update the exchange rate of euro/USD on the USD article, the rate may be different, but the date shows the same. Now there would be contradiction. Example 2: If the euro article has exchange against 4 other currencies, someone might just update one of them, very annoying. What do you suggest that can alleviate these problems? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The current situation is a mess. I will what I list at my to do list, which is available on my user page. I just think it's nice to notify people who may be interested. Be patient, this will take some time. Please don't yell at me like "why did you do xyz to the Belgian coins but not German. Inconsistency!". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of things categorized under Category:Numismatics that either shouldn't be in the cat and/or in the project. Please add any other individual or groups you feel. Joe I06:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, including that I'm not sure what to do with Electronic currencies. Since fictional currencies are included in exonumia, I think Electronic currencies would fit there. I've moved some articles out of Category:Numismatics (in my experience, most articles don't belong there). I wasn't sure what to do with WildWinds. Looks like an ad to me, but maybe it's notable, and I'm just aware of them. Anyone know? Ingrid01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does look very much like an ad. It's allready got an ad tag on it, so we'll see where it goes I guess. Joe I05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
which I took out of the project in December, but didn't untag the articles. I can untag the articles, but I'd appreciate someone confirming that they don't belong first. Ingrid01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a numismatist, but from a historical/geographical aspect whether an ancient city was or was not a mint in antiquity is one proxy for how important the place was, as is for example whether a particular place was the camp of a Roman legion (hence the numerous categories there). Since it is difficult to judge objectively a few thousand years later how important a place was (or got to be even just briefly), we must rely on combinations of these proxies. Among others: the movement or stationment of Roman or other armed forces (per above), written records (which are biased toward the varagies of which sources have survived and who were their patrons – hence we have relatively more written materials for nearly any Greek city of any size, but much less for cities in Gaul or even Roman Britain of equal size or importance, archaeological remains (again biased: toward the choice of stone building materials over wood or mud brick, and toward abandoned sites over places where habitation has been continuous and cannibalization occurred). And yes, coinage is biased as well, but does add to the mix of what we can know about a city: if coinage e.g. occurs over a period we can impute that the city was of economic and likely political importance over that period even if the written records are otherwise scanty or the remains have been plundered for quarry. So, as a category it serves more interest than purely numismatic purposes. However, as has often been said here: a list doesn't preclude a category nor vice versa. A list would have the value add if properly constructed of permitting a "first known coinage" and "last known coinage" dates/data and data about what coins were struck where. Carlossuarez4621:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. What about renaming the category to something that makes it clear the articles are not actually about mints, like "Sites of ancient mints"? Ingrid00:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
One more thing. Category:Currency unit stub is now marked with {{Numismaticnotice}} but contains some articles which are exonumia (like Auric (currency) which is a fictional currency). Seems like we need to split the stub category, but what should they be called? And is there a special procedure for creating a new kind of stub category? Or maybe it's easier to just untag the category and assume that anything in it is also in another more specific category. Thoughts? Ingrid03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I started {{Exonumia-stub}}}} which should take care of everything, unless I'm missing something. Not many people know or would care about any misclassification, until we get an Exonumia expert, I guess. Joe I03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This is clearly exonumia. Perhaps also complementary currency (see my proposal below). I'll switch the tags to exonumia and wait and see for the categorization. Ingrid21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I had an epiphany
In the past, I have been trying very hard to keep the numismatic galleries. I wrote lengthy arguments on AfD pages. A gallery can take the union of images on commons and on en. And editors have the freedom to section the images and put appropriate captions, like Gallery of Japanese banknotes. However, people keep raising AfD. Every time, it revolves around copyright or fair use. I think the whole copyright thing on currency is stupid. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it. But there are tons of copyright crusaders on wiki. Now I've said it. I don't care if hurts my RfA in the future, if there is one. OK, it was not my epiphany. My epiphany is the following. Copyright crusaders will always use the argument that if an image can be commonfied, it should be on commons, and you can create all the galleries you want on commons. If an image can't be on commons and is fair use, then it can't be on commons, nor can it be on en galleries. We can never argue against that. So I will stop defending galleries from now on. Instead, I will try to sub categorize Category:Currency images. And ultimately, delete the galleries. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if there's actually a difference (that we care to maintain), that would be a fine solution. To me, coiner is someone who physically makes coins. Is that right? This person may or may not be a designer (probably usually was, but maybe not always). Did Boehm and Gray actually make coins? Since I don't know the answers, and I doubt too many people really care about the distinction, it seems easier to me to merge into Currency designers. But I also don't really care if you or anyone else feels strongly about it. Ingrid00:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
More utility templates
I'd like to make these template. But before I do that, I'd like to get opinions from all of you.
Standard currency external links
What Dove1950 and I discuss at User talk:Dove1950#help required. Basically, points to banknote world, world coin gallery, dollarization, and global financial data, all optional. Also mirror url for banknote world and dollarization.
Standard Catalog of [World Paper Money|Coin] [xyz] edition.
Current exchange rate from any currency to another by XE
Historical exchange rate from any to another with a range by Oanda.
I've been working a bit on articles on the maple leaf bullion coins. Canadian Gold Maple Leaf currently contains a bunch of information on the silver, platinum and palladium versions of the coin, and I'd like to move most of that to Canadian Maple Leaf(currently almost empty) or the individual articles. I've created a stub on the Canadian Platinum Maple Leaf, and plan to start one on the Canadian Palladium Maple Leaf as well.
Couple of things though.. when I made the platinum stub, I followed the naming format used in the gold and silver articles: Canadian **** Maple Leaf. American Gold Eagle and the silver and platinum versions use this convention too, but these may be the official names. The canadian mint seems to just call them "Gold Maple Leaf" coins though, with no "Canadian" in front.
I think the best would be to stick with Canadian Maple Leaf (coin), Canadian Whatever Maple Leaf (coin). The coin should stay to distinguish between a real maple leaf. Joe I01:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
categories
I was going to make a simple change, so didn't bother to mention it here (change Category:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific to Category:Currencies of Asia, since that's what it is now). And I started noticing a lot of inconsistencies and potential issues. I started making changes, and realized I should check in first. So, here are my questions/thoughts:
I think categories that contain main namespace articles should not contain templates -- they can transclude the templates, but the template should not be listed in the article list. I started putting the category addition into "includeonly" blocks, but then realized that it was done this way consistently. I don't think it should be, but maybe others do.
Yeah, template shouldn't be in main namespace, and transcluding into the cat would be good.
This doesn't cause a problem for wikipedia. It's a little weird, but I don't think it's a big problem. Of course, transcluding the template puts the info in the category twice (each article is listed on the template and again in the category listing), but then we organize the articles differently in the template. I vote to put the template in there, and let the category be its own parent. Ingrid20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
For categories populated by a template, there is no consistent way of referencing the template or describing the category. I think we should either put something simple like "This category is for currencies named dinar or similar." or just transclude the template. I don't think it's appropriate to mention the template in editor-speak, for example, "This category is populated by {{dinar}}".
I renamed Category:Specific currencies to Category:Currencies by time because it did not contain all specific currencies. I had originally created Category:Official currencies to contain all currencies which have been legal tender or otherwise official somewhere at some time. This was renamed to specific currencies and community currencies were added. I'm not thrilled with the way I fixed it, but am not sure how to make it better. There's also Category:Currencies by region which should have the same articles as currencies by time, just organized differently. Maybe they should both be subcategories of "Official currencies"? Or maybe it's fine as is.
I was thinking more along the lines of changing the rest of the Australian articles to match the general format on the rest of Wikipedia: Denomination (Nationality coin). Perhaps we ought to come up with a standard format for article titles?--chris.lawson18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
My motto is "fix a class of a problem, not an instance of a problem". You do bring up a good point, Clawson. I have tried to bring editors' attention to the problem, site wide, at Talk:Australian 10 cent coin. But nobody has answered that. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I also raised the problem in jan, its still on this page [here] But Clawson it should be noted that in january the coins were in the form Denomination (Nationality coin) or Denomination coin (nationality). which means someone changed them allIAmTheCoinMan17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is about a conceptual idea. It's sort of a currency, but definitely exonumia. I think it should be in some subcategory of Category:Currency. International dollar is directly in currency. It's not exactly the same thing, but I think closer than anything else. I'm confused. Ingrid04:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I was just going to get to work on this, since no one has objected. I would like to make the denomination templates (like {{Crown}}) which uses "defunct" and the category name which uses "obsolete" consistent. I prefer obsolete, but not strongly enough to matter. Anyone else have an opinion? Ingrid14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't really notice it before, but the template uses "current" and the categories use "circulating". I don't think "current" would work as well for the category, but "circulating" seems fine to me for the template. Anyone object to me changing it? Ingrid14:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Information related to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Archive 4
