Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics

Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Cryptocurrency task force So I just did a overhaul to the main project page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptocurrency like adding a orange-like color format to the page and made a userbox and a barnstar, but I'm now finding out there is a task force also for Cryptocurrency via Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Cryptocurrency task force. Was WikiProject Cryptocurrency approved through here instead of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals? Or did anyone here not know about WikiProject Cryptocurrency? Jerm (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC) I think we're very shorthanded and probably these things go unnoticed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Yeah, and a lot of editors are becoming less active too. I had marked like three WikiProjects this year as inactive and others as semi. I actually just marked WikiProject Cryptocurrency to semi because there are only two members who are still active editors. Jerm (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptocurrency is the "active" one. This task force is pretty much inactive so I marked it as Category:Inactive task forces. Coin (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC) I added the assessment table of the task force to the page of the wikiproject, but I'm not sure if the wikiproject has the same amount of articles assessed according to the task force assessment table. Jerm (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC) 200 euro note Hi. I noticed that 200 euro note (a Good Article) has an empty subsection (this one). This seems like something that can be easily fixed by someone with the right expertise, which is why I'm bringing it to your attention. Thanks! Lennart97 (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC) 1 yen note I need someone to copyedit this article for me. It took a few days but I feel enough information has been poured into the article to bump it up to a "B" rating. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Good article reassessment Please see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Silver center cent/1 ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Talk:Coins_of_the_United_States_dollar Some bot keeps trashing the talk page of Talk:Coins_of_the_United_States_dollar can someone look into it? There is a new coin/bullion Morgan/Peace dollar coming out this year, and it may need to be added, but the bot keeps deleting the section to talk about how to add it to the page. shadzar-talk 12:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC) FAR for Order of St Patrick I have nominated Order of St Patrick for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Usage of coin colour templates Hello numisticians, I thought I'd drop this thought I had here for some initial feedback, before I go on and propose something more formal, as I know this is a passionately watched category of articles. The three templates used to add colour to tables of coinage (Template:Coin-copper-color, Template:Coin-yellow-color, and Template:Coin-silver-color) are all applied as per the numistics MOS, with entire rows being coloured (example taken from MOS): Prewar series - Regular issues (link to official page about this series if exists) Image Value Technical parameters Description Date of Obverse Reverse Diameter Thickness Mass Composition Edge Obverse Reverse first minting issue withdrawal 1 f 17.0 mm 1.0 mm 1.66 g Bronze 95% copper 4% tin 1% zinc Smooth "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Holy Crown of Hungary, year of minting Indication of value, mintmark 1926 27 December 1926 31 December 1945 Couldn't we make it so that only the cells in the 'composition' column get the colour instead? This has two benefits, as I see it: The reader may be confused about why a row is seemingly arbitrarily coloured, but if it's just one cell, the contents of that single cell should make it very clear what the colour refers to I suspect minimising the use of coloured backgrounds will improve accessibility Here's what it could look like: Prewar series - Regular issues (link to official page about this series if exists) Image Value Technical parameters Description Date of Obverse Reverse Diameter Thickness Mass Composition Edge Obverse Reverse first minting issue withdrawal 1 f 17.0 mm 1.0 mm 1.66 g Bronze 95% copper 4% tin 1% zinc Smooth "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Holy Crown of Hungary, year of minting Indication of value, mintmark 1926 27 December 1926 31 December 1945 I've made the above update 'manually', but I'd imagine the templates can be updated if there's consensus that this is a good idea. Any thoughts? EditorInTheRye (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC) EditorInTheRye You make some valid points, but one problem I see with your proposal is that it would be impossible to color rows for bi-metallic coins, such as the Canadian $2 coin. - ZLEA T\C 09:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC) ZLEA That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that, actually. It's doable, but I'll be the first to admit that editing this table (taken from the article you linked) was rather painful (but then again others may be more at ease with wikitable markup than I am)... Canadian coins Image Value Technical parameters Description Common name First minted Discontinued Withdrawal Obverse Reverse Diameter Thickness Mass Composition Edge Obverse Reverse $2 28 mm 1.8 mm 7.3 g Ring: 99% nickel Intermittent milled/smooth Queen Elizabeth II Polar bear Toonie 1996 2011 Still in use Centre: 92% copper 6% aluminium 2% nickel 6.92 g Ring: nickel plated steel Intermittent milled/smooth/edge lettered Polar bear with 2 security features 2012 Still produced Centre: aluminum bronze These images are to scale at 2.5 pixels per millimetre. For table standards, see the coin specification table. EditorInTheRye (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC) EditorInTheRye Well, you addressed my only concern. I support this idea. - ZLEA T\C 19:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Potential edit war Last year an edit war occurred at Egyptian pound resulting in the participants being blocked. One of the participants has re-edited the article away from the stable version to a form which is not supported by sources. Valethske (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Are you referring to The Currency Guy? If you're sure it's them, then report to AN/I for block evasion. Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC) No, its MatthewS, he seems intent on adding abbreviations the sources don't use. Valethske (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC) I appeal to @MatthewS. to engage here before editing the article again. Valethske (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Moderators, please check the info I posted on the Egyptian pound and judge for yourselves. Everything is referenced, in fact the £ currency sign is referenced by a historic record that the other contributor has used to back up their claim for the all-caps PT abbr. for "piastre," which I was initially wasn't convinced of, until I saw that reference and stood corrected, and changed all instances of small-case "pt" to "PT" all-caps as referenced by their ref historic record. But also the standalone £ sign is also used on that same document, proving that the pound sign is indeed a valid way to abbreviate Egyptian pound, and was so intended since the late 1800's. So I used this same reference to backup the use of the standalone £ sign for Egyptian pound where no confusion could be caused, for example where the context shows the Egyptian pound is what is intended. E£ is also commonly used online to specify Egyptian pound, and I have also provided references to back up that claim. Everything is referenced and the only reason I could imagine the other contributor would be in disagreement is a matter of personal opinion or preference, no more no less. MatthewS. (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC) These abbreviations you insist upon are poorly sourced and are certainly not the most commonly used (the most common by far is LE, as demonstrated by all sources). Valethske (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Again, that’s your personal opinion. LE is no longer the most common one. E£ is very common nowadays, and “EGP”. Please stop reverting my edits MatthewS. (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) The Central Bank of Egypt (and pretty much all of the sources) uses "LE", your preferred "E£" does not seem to occur anywhere in reliable sources. If something cannot be demonstrated to be "the most common one" using reliable sources then it should not be used as the primary abbreviation. Valethske (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

US nickel coin has changed design?

Hi, it looks like the nickel now has a different design from the one(s) displayed in Jefferson nickel, Nickel (United States coin), and Coins of the United States dollar ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Someone got the 2013 design deleted, I've readded it. Reywas92^Talk 13:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

There have been problems with a number of recent US coins that were designed by people who are not Mint employees and to which the US government has acquired the copyrights. While we can freely use government works, the US Mint has been restrictive in its image use policy. Thus, the best we can do is a fair use, and people haven't been uploading low-resolution versions and filling out fair use rationales. Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Editions Victor Gadoury article is proposed for deletion

FYI, Editions Victor Gadoury has been proposed for deletion. The article's lead says:

• "The Editions Victor Gadoury is a Monaco publishing company specialized in numismatics and selling coin catalogs."

Deletion will occur automatically after 20:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC) unless someone removes the tag.

If you think deletion is a good idea, you can second the proposal by adding a {{prod2}} tag.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Has anyone here heard of Fanery, the traditional money used in Madagascar (well, maybe not)?

For the interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanery. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)