Talk:British One Penny coin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British One Penny coin is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

	This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Could someone please explain to me the 'One and two pence coins are legal tender only up to the sum of 20p.' reference. I do not recal such law existing, as i have, on many occations payed for things with 1-2p coins to values greater than 20p. Also, banks allow bags of 1GBP in 1-2 pence pieces. --Benbread 17:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The relevant current law is the Currency Act, 1983, although similar limits have applied in the past (bronze coins only valid to one shilling, etc). Note the article on legal tender -- that is the limit of the value of coins which someone can be forced to accept in payment of a debt. There is nothing to stop someone agreeing to take larger amounts, but I could not, for example, dump 60,586 pennies at my local council office in payment of this years' Council Tax, it would be unreasonable of me to expect them to count them accurately. As for the banks accepting bags of £1's worth of bronze coins, there is no debt involved, you are simply paying money into an account so "legal tender" doesn't enter into it; also banks tend to weigh coins rather than count them, anyway. -- Arwel 23:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the main article is not worded very clearly. I believe it would be better to say you can legally refuse 'settlement of a debt' of greater than 20 pence in 1p or 2p coins. Of course, when no debt has been incurred, anybody is free to refuse payment of any form, regardless of legal tender - for instance a bus driver doesn't have to take a £20 note for a £1 fare, because no debt has been incurred at that stage. Equally a shopkeeper could refuse a £1 coin in payment for an item costing £1, if they chose not to sell it to you - you don't have a legal right to buy something from someone else if they don't want to sell it to you.

[edit] From D and dropped when moving to D (disambiguation)

On D the following appears:

In British currency, d is an abbreviation (from the Latin denarius) for the pre-decimalization

penny, worth 1/240th of a pound.

In transferring the information to D (disambiguation) I have shortened this to:

British One Penny coin ("d"), as the abbreviation for the United Kingdom coin denomination before

1971

Would you a) consider this an accurate transformation and b) consider inclusion of the information dropped in the transformation in this article? The reason for the change is to focus on disambiguation rather than information delivery.

Regards, Courtland 01:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not accurate. For starters, British One Penny coin links to the article about the decimal penny coin introduced in 1971, abbreviated "p"; secondly "d" is not an abbreviation for the coin, but for the value, i.e. you could have anything from 1d to 11d. -- Arwel 02:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• This indicates what's wrong, but it doesn't indicate how to make it right. Courtland 03:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

The article is little more than a stub at the moment. I'm suprised it was nominated as a Good Article. SilkTork 13:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How could it be improved? It is not a stub, or anything like one, as it is pretty much the most one can write on the subject. Computerjoe's talk 13:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Coins

I don't think this article should be put under Category:Coins, not because an article should only belong to exactly one category, but because Category:Coins of the United Kingdom is a subcategory of Category:Coins. See this MOS for rules. It states as it first sentence

In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges.

Isn't the case of British One Penny coin analogous to that? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But read the very next sentence:

However there are many articles which should be in both a subcategory and a parent category.

Besides, if your argument is 100% valid, then how do you explain the Living people category? Anthony Rupert 15:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read the MOS. And my interpretation is that the general rule is not to put an article into both a cat and a subcat. "However there are many articles which should be in both a subcategory and a parent category." is an exception and must be justified. I don't see subcategories of Category:Living people. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And how might that be justified?

By the way, when I brought up Living people, I meant that articles about famous people belong to several categories as well as that very broad category. Anthony Rupert 21:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ChoChoPK. Including an article in a category and a subcategory of that category should be an exceptional event and should be well-justified before it's done. Looking at Category:Coins, it is clear that its principal purpose is to provide a hierarchy of subcategories, not to contain individual coins. -- Arwel (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)