Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This project page 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.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating.

Archives:

Contents

[edit] Philippine peso

By the rule of using local name, shouldn't this be Philippine piso? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Piso ng Pilipinas" is what it is called on the Tagalog Wikipedia. – Zntrip 22:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgaria to join euro

152.97.217.126 just changed the date from 2009 to 2010 all over the place. But I am no euro expert. Can someone verify? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Currency infobox release note

  • New optional row inflation_method where the most often value is [[Consumer price index|CPI]]
  • The heading "Inflation rate" is shorten to "Inflation" so that it won't cause that row to be unnecessarily higher.
  • See Czech koruna for example.

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Monetary Union unit (part 2)

Are you tired of doing this formula:

coin weight * purity / 31.1034768 * price of 1 troy ounce of metal X

User:Chochopk/Latin Monetary Union unit could alleviate some of that burden. The new table shows various common coin specifications in the late 19th and early 20th century and their current bullion values. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trade Dollar Coin of the United States

I stumbled across Trade Dollar Coin of the United States today, and wonder if this might not serve us better as a category than an essentially empty article. Thoughts? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And I think the capitalization of the article/category has been generally overlooked. Only proper names should be capitalized. Seated Liberty dollar is fine, as Liberty refers to Lady Liberty. Trade Dollar (United States coin) looks questionable. Trade Dollar Coin of the United States (or the future category) also looks questionable to me. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] correct grammar

There is a commons:Category:Money of the East Caribbean States and commons:Category:Coins of East Caribbean States. Which one is grammatically correct? with "the" or without? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Without the "the" the sentence sounds not correct to the ear, so "the" should be there for both instances. Enlil Ninlil 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rampant deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Africa coins (and there are links to others) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the rest:
AfD of numismatic galleries (2006-10-18)
Current Coins | Africa coins | Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Africa coins | circulating Asia and Oceania coins | circulating Europe coins | circulating Western hemisphere coins | Banknotes
Precedence Coins (2006-06-26) | Banknotes (2006-06-01) | Banknotes (2006-06-14)

– Zntrip 21:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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.
  1. East Asia, including Mongolia
  2. Southeast Asia
  3. South Asia (no Pakistan)
  4. Middle East (all the way to Pakistan to Israel)
  5. Members of former Soviet Union
  6. East Europe
  7. Pre-2004 EU 15 members
  8. Rest of Europe
  9. Arabic speaking Africa
  10. Former British West Africa
  11. Former French West Africa + Cape Verde
  12. Former French Central Africa
  13. Rest of Africa that was not formerly British, including Sao Tome
  14. Rest of Africa that was formerly British
  15. North America that is physically connected to the continent
  16. Caribbean
  17. South America
  18. 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;
  1. East Asia, including Mongolia and former Soviet Asia states, Southeast Asia, and South Asia (no Pakistan)
  2. Middle East (all the way to Pakistan to Israel) - (does this include Egypt?)
  3. East Europe to include Members of former Soviet Union
  4. Pre-2004 EU 15 members
  5. Rest of Europe
  6. Arabic speaking Africa
  7. Non-Arabic speaking Africa
  8. North America
  9. South America
  10. Oceania, including Papua NG, and Austrialia.
Africa, I wasn't to sure about, but that should be ok. Joe I 09:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
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

  1. Asia (no middle east, but include the 5 "stans")
  2. Middle East (from Pakistan to Morocco and Turkey)
  3. Western Europe (as defined in the pic)
  4. Eastern Europe (rest of Europe, including Russia)
  5. Rest of Africa
  6. The Americas
  7. Oceana

Still don't know where to place Caucasia. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If nobody opposes, I will be bold and make the change in a few days. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, basically sounds cool, what exactly do you mean by Caucasia? What would the names be? Coins of..., Currencies of...(Subs to notes gallery and coins gallery?) Use adjective names? Joe I 11:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking about
  1. Gallery of {coins|banknotes} of Asia
  2. Gallery of {coins|banknotes} of the Greater Middle East
  3. Gallery of {coins|banknotes} of Western Europe
  4. Gallery of {coins|banknotes} of Eastern Europe
  5. Gallery of {coins|banknotes} of Sub-Saharan Africa
  6. Gallery of {coins|banknotes} of the Americas
  7. Gallery of {coins|banknotes} of Oceania
So 14 galleries. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
By Caucasia, I meat Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, like the Caucasus Mountains, I thought u meant white people, we're everywhere.  :) Both Portal:Middle East and Greater Middle East say they are sometimes included. Sounds like one of those times. How bout Australia and Oceania? Other than that, I see no problems. Joe I 00:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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 lenk 17:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Another thing. Instead of simple galleries, currency coin and paper money pages with the suitable tables would be more useful, check the ones I created Czech koruna coins, Hungarian forint coins, Hungarian pengő coins, Hungarian pengő paper money and Hungarian forint paper money. The most important is the consistency of the article names. If you have any ideas or agree, please share here before creating these articles.
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 lenk 19:30, 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)

Since nobody responded, I'll consider this issue closed, per discussion with Timur lenk. The resolution is "Gallery of XYZian coins" and "Gallery of XYZian paper money". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

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:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

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. B2T2 22:45, 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. 207.160.66.129 14:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the Garter

Order of the Garter is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 20:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian awards

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. — Moondyne 13:59, 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 I 15:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually for Australia it is a pretty significant event, everyone knows about it and it is heavily publicised. Enlil Ninlil 04:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] coin image templates

Hi

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.

Any comments on the concept?

Curtius 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree more. I see repeated hard coded table in articles like Spanish peseta, Italian lira. In case you haven't noticed, I'm a big proponent of templates. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


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?

The remaining text is just a filler to show how they look surrounded by text. Curtius 22:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

Image:Crawford 13-1 Obverse.jpg Image:Crawford 13-1 Reverse.jpg
O: Head of Mars with Corinthian helmet left R: Horse head right, grain ear behind

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.

Image:Cr_20-1_Obverse.jpg Image:Cr_20-1-Reverse.jpg
O: Diademed head Hercules right, club on shoulder R: Wolf suckling twins, ROMANO in. ex.

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.

Curtius 22:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's take it to the Sandbox, shall we? I'll try to come up with something, too. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exchange rate

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)

Well I find to change the exchange rate all the time to be a great wast of time. So a link would be sensible. Enlil Ninlil 05:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess someone could have a bot it. – Zntrip 06:19, 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)

[edit] Oregon Centennial Tokens

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! Katr67 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 00:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Good news (sinobanknote)

The webmaster of Sinobanknote has agreed to let people upload images to Wikipedia. Enjoy. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:18, 26 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 I 06:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Saliba 12:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been talking with Dove1950 about the Lebanese livre article, and I believe we've reached the general conclusion that, per the Numismatics style guidelines, the appropirate name of the article is Lebanese lira. As such, I'm going to move the article and begin updating references to it. George Saliba 23:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to go with pound since that is the most common translation and name of the currency. – Zntrip 01:00, 28 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 Saliba 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of St. Patrick

Order of St. Patrick is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested changes under Exonumia category

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 | Talk 05:12, 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. Ingrid 00:29, 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 I 03:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Ingrid 00:21, 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)

[edit] 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:

Banknote
And these coin articles

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.

We agree on the coin but not on the notes. Can you guys help us out? Former discussion at User talk:Timur lenk#untitled message and User talk:Chochopk#Naming scheme (they are not well ordered, and may contain some other subjects).

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:
  1. "Money" refers to any or all types of circulating legal tender.
  2. "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.
  3. "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.
  4. "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 | Talk 21:03, 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).
  • Regnum - currency type (Romanian leu)
  • Phylum - currency system (Romanian leu (1952))
  • 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 lenk 23:50, 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. Ingrid 03:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
And smaller at the same time: British does not include Northern Ireland which is part of the UK.Timur lenk 07:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orders, decorations, and medals

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?

(I've posted this message on both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics)

Xdamrtalk 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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 Mark Talk 04:03, 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?
Xdamrtalk 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


The more I look around (in my spare tidbits of time) about how medals are addressed on Wikipedia, the more of a mess I see. It's rather difficult to poke around Wikipedia's structure, but I've found three other WikiProjects whose interests overlap: Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Metalworking, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture. Moreover, the profession of those who produce medals can be artisan, coiner, engraver, goldsmith or sculptor — take your pick.
So far, I've built a medal categorization as follows (more outline than detail):
      • Category:Medals.
        • Category:Art medals. Covers art medals, medallions, plaques & plaquettes.
        • Category:Commemorative medals.
          • Category:Napoleonic medals.
        • Category:Indian peace medals.
        • Category:Medallists.
        • Category:Orders and decorations. Military and civilian.
          • Category:Badges.
        • Category:Prize medals.
        • Category:Religious and devotional medals. Excludes communion tokens, which are in the “Tokens” category.


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.
So, how does this look?
Category:Cultural history
|
|___ Category:Orders and decorations - renamed to National Honours Systems?
| . . |
| . . |___ Category:Orders and decorations of Australia
| . . |___ Category:Orders and decorations of Botswana
| . . |___ ...etc...
|
|___ Category:Numismatics
|
|___ Category:Exonumia
|
|___ Category:Badges
|___ Category:Coins
|___ Category:Medals
|
|___ Category:Art medals
|___ Category:Commemorative medals
|___ Category:Prize medals
|___ Category:Religious and devotional medals
|___ Category:Sporting medals
|
|___ Category:Olympic medals
|___ ...etc...
Xdamrtalk 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


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.”
Fortunately, that's not so much a problem with the way I believe Wikipedia's categories work. To the degree that I understand them correctly, a Category:Orders and decorations could descend from Category:Cultural history through either a Category:National honours systems or Category:Numismatics — or both! In this sense, the creation of a broader Category:National honours systems is a matter all of its own; Category:Orders and decorations need only be linked to it to “make it so.” Trying to understand wikicategories can certainly drive one to drink! ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
Xdamrtalk 19:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

Xdamrtalk 19:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Octopus card FAR

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.

Sandy (Talk) 01:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slovenian tolar

As 1 January 2007 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).

A lot of changes
Some changes
Trivial changes

Images (and their uploaders)

Please feel free to add to the list or leave any comment. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Added some articles. edolen1 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Numismatics_4608.html"