Talk:British Farthing coin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We should keep articles at simple names (see wikipedia:naming conventions (common names)). Therefore this content should live at farthing, I believe. Unless there are non-UK farthings? Martin 23:23 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
I think there were Irish farthings, and I wouldn't be surprised about any Australian etc ones. The problem is that we are currently producing articles linked off British coinage for each denomination ever circulated, and it is necessary to have more complex naming conventions to distinguish between coins of the same name, e.g. the 14th century English coin Florin or Double Leopard, worth six shillings, and the 19th/20th century British coin Florin worth two shillings. This convention had been created before I discovered Wikipedia, and I'm just continuing it. The Farthing article was the only non-standard one which previously existed, and the redirect from there to here should catch any inadvertent links to the old article.
This naming style does reflect that the farthing existed before the British state -- I reserve the right to be inconsistent in not writing about the Mercian/English/British coin Penny! -- Arwel 23:41 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Etymology
I restored the etymology from "far-thing" to the original "four-thing". However I do not know whether that is right or only someone's guess. Please check, and confirm or correct... Thanks.
Jorge Stolfi 22:08, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
- Cheers - my mistake! Mark Richards 22:18, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
- I believe a farthing is Anglo-saxon or Norse for a quarter, and riding is Anglo-saxon or Norse for a third - which makes sense. Can anybody verify this? TiffaF 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] End of validity
I'm reverting the recent change that the farthing ceased to be legal tender on 1 January 1961; my authority is Coincraft's Standard Catalogue of English & UK coins 1066 to Date which states that it ceased to be legal tender "after 31 December 1960". What's the difference? Well, the date is given twice in the article, and the second one as it now stands (apart from a typo of 13 January) implies they were still valid on 1-1-61. -- Arwel 23:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)