Jump to content

Talk:50 State quarters/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

What will 2010 quarters be?

i have a good question i think we will go back to the eagle like before 1999 but no one knows for sure. what will 2010 quarters be? 99.51.212.6 (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Park_Quarters Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 22:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

2007 State Quarter Images

I have uploaded the new 2007 state quarter images from the U.S. Mint website (http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/index.cfm?action=50_state_quarters_program). The images are not of the same high quality as the proof images used for the South Dakota and earlier quarters since I could find no image of similar quality in the U.S. Mint Pressroom. I would normally hesitate to put these up, but they illustrate the designs far better than just a short text description. These images should be replaced when the Mint releases the proof files used for the other state quarters. —Ua747sp 03:03, Jan 1, 2007 (UTC)

I found them here [1], if anyone would care to upload them. Jwolfe 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

South Dakota

I thought it might be better to open this up in the discussion section. I figure I'll neutralize the language first of all. I guess the pesticides need no explanation, as they cause many things, which readers can see themselves in the pesticides article. Also, I think that the link between fossil fuels and global warming is more debatable than the link between fertilizer use in industrial agriculture and the hypoxia of the Gulf I can reference it (http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/taskforce/hypoxia.htm).

My point is that this is an article about state quarters. I agree with everything you've written, but this isn't the place to do more than mention the irony. I think the connection between fossil fuels and global warming is well-established, but the effect of fertilizer use in South Dakota on the Gulf of Mexico is a bit more tenuous, since fertilizer is used all over the Mississippi/Missouri basin and in the Gulf Coast states.
But at any rate, I'd hate to see some other editor remove the item altogether for POV. Can you cite perhaps a newspaper article substantiating that the South Dakota quarter is controversial in this way?--Curtis Clark 16:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have an article, so I guess I should delete some stuff. What parts are too POV? Btw, I wasn't meaning to say that SD was the primary culprit when it comes to hypoxia - that honor probably goes to Iowa - rather that chemical fertilizers throughout the Mississippi basin have the combined end effect of causing hypoxia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eco jake (talk • contribs) .

I think it's fine the way it is; I just didn't want to see it go any farther.--Curtis Clark 23:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course if everyone thought like I did, there'd probably be like 7 quarters with bison on them - it's already a little wierd that Kansas and North Dakota have practically the same subject matter... Eco jake 04:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Eco Jake

To me, an average American, Mt. Rushmore and wheat are two very fine symbols of South Dakota. Mt. Rushmore is the states most popular tourist destination. Additionally, it is seen as a symbol of America. I would expect nothing less on the state's quarter. About the wheat, SD is a plains state. The Great Plains are known for their great agricultural reigions. In terms of the bird, could it possible symbolize nothing more than a free spirit that would undoubtedly belong in South Dakota?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.97.40.98 (talk • contribs) .

Remember that en.Wikipedia is for the English-speaking world. Clearly those symbols are important enough to many that they ended up on the quarter, but like some of the other quarters, there is also controversy.--Curtis Clark 06:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but this still has way too much POV. I am not disputing these symbols may have some direct or circumstantial meaning to the erosion of Native American culture. However, there does not seem to be any substantiation for the controversy. You can say that the New Jersey quarter, depicting George Washington crossing the Delaware River to fight the British is anti-British. That's a circumstantial case for controversy, but since there is no evidence of protest, there is no controversy. Also, this needs to be re-written to properly establish connection:
The South Dakota quarter features three foreign objects, although South Dakota has the second highest proportion of American Indians of any state.
It's disjointed. How do "foreign objects" (another phrase that needs clarity) relate to the Native American population? You wouldn't say, "I walked to the store, even though my car is red." I'd just as soon see that whole paragraph go until a cited claim of controversy can be found. —Twigboy 17:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

for what it is worth I agree with Twigboy

"The South Dakota quarter features three foreign objects, although South Dakota has the second highest proportion of American Indians of any state." what does that have to do with the 3 objects also the whole paragraph seems to be someone's agenda. more than facts. i think it should be removed or rewriten Smith03 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"... South Dakota has the second highest proportion of American Indians of any state." The linked article on American Indians says South Dakota is #3 behind Alaska and New Mexico in percentage of American Indian *and Alaska Native* population. There's no citation for American Indian percentage alone. 76.17.184.63 07:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is far too much opinion in the current description of the South Dakota quarter. The description of the quarter is not a forum for protesting the inclusion of symbols that represent "European settlement" at the expense of the Native Americans.

208.58.7.8 23:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)neutrality please

Sadly, some self-appointed editors see fit to pass judgment on when edits done by others are necessary. Egregiously, an "editor" with the initials CC claims to have a NPOV and yet he insists on maintaining heavily subjective references to Native Americans and European settlement in the description of the South Dakota quarter. Wikipedia's guidelines state: "It is important to realize that in contributing to Wikipedia, users are expected to be civil and neutral, respecting all points of view, and only add verifiable and factual information rather than personal views and opinions."

208.58.7.8 neutrality please

An unexplained deletion by an anon is indistinguishable from vandalism. The text has stood for a number of months after several editors haggled out a version that was acceptable to all. For an IP address to revert it repeatedly without explanation wasn't even worth the dignity of an edit summary beyond "revert". Now that you have at least had the sense to stop being a hit-and-run deleter, I would ask you to explain why your deletion does any more than destroy the work of all the editors who worked with the original, very POV addition to make it generally acceptable. Lacking that, I'm afraid it's off to WP:AIV for you.--Curtis Clark 04:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite what the "editors" haggled out, the current description is extremely subjective and most certainly has a POV. The whole nonsense about European settlement and Native Americans belongs on a blog somewhere, not on the Wikipedia description of the South Dakota quarter. It is shocking how some people have appointed themselves as judges of what is "worth the dignity of an edit summary beyond revert." Moreover, your insistence on the inclusion of the European settlement and Native American piece is completely contrary to the stated objective of Wikipedia: "It is important to realize that in contributing to Wikipedia, users are expected to be civil and neutral, respecting all points of view, and only add verifiable and factual information rather than personal views and opinions." If you want to hold yourself out as some sort of Wikipedia official, then please follow the guidelines. 208.58.7.8 neutrality please —Preceding comment was added at 03:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The disrespect of an IP address coming in and destroying the work of other editors with no explanation is galling. (An example of what a respectful anon does is here.) It is also galling to have that same IP address (and of course given the nature of IP addresses, it could be a different person) quote a Wikipedia guideline that includes the word "civil" at the same time as "some self-appointed editors", "The whole nonsense", and "If you want to hold yourself out as some sort of Wikipedia official".
But let's examine your accusations in the cold light of factual analysis:
  • "South Dakota has the second highest proportion of American Indians of any state"—You have not challenged the factual accuracy of this.
  • Three items are mentioned that are "the result of European settlement":
  1. "Mount Rushmore"—While it could be argued that the Lakota could have carved it absent people of European ancestry, both their level of technology and the lack of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt argue against this.
  2. "a pheasant (an exotic species)"—It is well-demonstrated that pheasants are not native to North America, and their most likely source is introduction by people of European ancestry as a game species.
  3. "wheat, which has replaced tens of thousands of square miles of diverse grasslands"—The introduction of wheat is even better substantiated. Honestly I don't know whether there are tens of thousands of square miles of wheat fields in South Dakota, but there are certainly a lot of them, and the historical record shows that the area they occupy was once, by and large, native grassland. The "diverse" part, in the sense of species diversity, is clear: monoculture agriculture is successful primarily because it does reduce species diversity, forcing more primary productivity into the crop plant and less into other species.
  • "the Black Hills which are seen as sacred by the Lakota"—The historical place of the Black Hills in the culture of the Lakota is well established, and the blood of many people of both Lakota and European origin has been shed over disagreements about the area. Arguably not all living Lakota regard them as sacred, but published accounts indicate that some do.
The original addition (I'm not going to take the time to look it up) was indeed POV, and several of us took the time to remove the non-factual parts. I'm still a bit concerned that there is no citation to show that these facts make the SD quarter controversial, but I don't see that as a license to disrespect the work of other editors.--Curtis Clark 13:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an unquestionable agenda behind the description of the South Dakota quarter. It clearly demonstrates a POV that sheds sympathy upon a particular class, in this case Native American Indians. What is truly galling is how self-appointed "editors" think they have some sort of governance over Wikipedia. This is not your private website, even if you do seem to spend a disturbingly inordinate amount of time on it. Admit that the description of the South Dakota quarter continues to include an agenda-driven POV and make the proper adjustments. 208.58.7.8 neutrality please —Preceding comment was added at 04:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First, knock off the personal attacks. Second, the section is about "design issues", and if you would take the time to read the other items there, you'd see that they often describe disagreements, controversies, and alternate interpretations. Some of these specifically include POV, since it is a natural part of any disagreement.
I'm sorry you're so opposed to sympathy for Native Americans. I suppose that if you opposed sympathy for geographers, you'd redact the entry for Nevada, or if you thought that safety groups were whining liberals, you'd "fix" Minnesota. You're the one with the agenda here, and your slinging of accusations doesn't make that any less true. As for my Wikipedia editing habits, my worst is perhaps that I spend too much time arguing with IP addresses.--Curtis Clark 13:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Important question

How the heck did someone editing this page obtain the quarters beyond Oregon, which haven't been minted yet?

The scans are available from the government at usmint.gov. The other artist renderings are made available by each state when they choose the image, I believe. That's where I got the Colorado one anyway. --MattWright (talk) 06:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

thanx

Alabama Trivia

The last line of Trivia reads now: "The Alabama quarter's use of Braille is the only use of a non-English language on the quarters to date."
What does that mean? Isn't braille a method of writing and not language. And there's plenty of Latin in US coins: "E pluribus unum". Or am I just misunderstaning something? --JmT 22:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. I've replaced it with the more correct trivia found at http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/50sq_program/states/index.cfm?flash=yes&state=AL --MattWright (talk) 08:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Kansas quarters

What about news of the truck carrying the Kansas quarters catching fire and taking a small chunk out of the total mintage? Do you think that's appropriate for the main article?

Seems appropriate for the trivia section if you have a source. --MattWright (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Missouri Controvery

The entire Missouri controvery appears to have been copied verbatim from http://www.pauljackson.com/Quartergate.pdf. It should probably be removed or rewritten much more concisely and without plagiarizing. --MattWright (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. Wasted Time R 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Tint on images

Why do all of the images of the 2000 and 2001 have a blue tint? SandBoxer 03:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's exactly blue. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe these are proofs downloaded from the usmint.gov site, so we don't have control over the exact process. Maybe they switched cameras at one point? --MattWright (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I compared Georgia and Connecticut. Georgia is a 24-bit RGB .png and Connecticut is a 256-shade grayscale .jpg. Converting the blue ones to grayscale would remove the tint, if that were desired.--Curtis Clark 01:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do. It's confusing how the images are right now. Thanks.The freddinator 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevada trivia

Just isn't true. Anyone who's ever driven from Reno to Tahoe can tell you that the Sierra Nevada range most certainly dips into Nevada, albeit briefly. And besides, this particular tidbit seems so... trivial.Armandtanzarian 10:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

quarter images

Is it just me of from Deleware to Kentucky the quarters seems to have a blue-ish colors, while the rest dont...Coasttocoast 00:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read "Tint on images" right above this.--Curtis Clark 03:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Colorado

Those any one knows if a Colorado state quarter is at Guam? I really need one. (Master King 09:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

Uh, it's pretty much chance what quarters get shipped where. Try looking on eBay. --Kurt 05:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A More Important (unrelated) Question

I have LOTS of duplicates. Isn't there anyone out there who would be willing to trade? I just spent hours surfing through thousands of sites that want to sell me State Quarters, but I cannot believe that there aren't some collectors who are willing to trade! --User:W8IMP 19:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning?

Is this really appropriate? It might set a new precedent. Maybe the economic prediction page needs to be tagged too...--Dylan Lake 04:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm taking down the spoiler warning.--Dylan Lake 01:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

Why doesn't the Pennsylvania quarter have the Liberty Bell? Clearly that is the symbol of Pennsylvania.

That's opinion, and does not belong on wikipedia. When I think Pennsylvania, I think the Amish, Cheesesteaks, the Phillies, the Pirates, the Eagles, the Steelers, Boy Meets World, The Office, Will Smith, the Declaration of Independence, and Rocky Balboa. -- 12.116.162.162 (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Quarters Curse - Nonsense

Okay, how exactly is my edit nonsense? I gave a credible link (which by the way, has not been removed from this site) to a different source. Whether or not the "curse" is real is not the point. I don't like the fact that it was considered "nonsense," even when I gave a link to a news website that stated that some people believe in the curse? Could someone elaborate on this? I mean, who cares if it's real or not? It's still controversy, which is exactly what I titled the section. JEMASCOLA 03:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The only reason that relevant, referenced material should be removed is if it is unencyclopedic. I think that could be argued in this case, but it should have been argued here before removing the section.--Curtis Clark 04:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Tennessee Stars Under Trivia

My old Tennessee History textbook in grade school assured me that in addition to the three Grand Divisions, the three stars can also be taken to refer to the fact that Tennessee was the third state to be inducted into the Union after the original thirteen colonies. (13 + 3 = 16th state). I recall it being on the test actually. Feel free to revert. MrGalt 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Got ISBN? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing uncited material

The following haven't had citations provided in four months, so I've removed them:

  • When Connecticut's Charter Oak quarter was initially released, it was theorized that its weight was slightly less than the norm for all other quarters, resulting in innumerable vending machine hassles
  • Georgia. Shortly after the Georgia quarter was released, there was an article in the Chattanooga Times Free Press about an apparent mistake in the quarter. The outline of the state of Georgia on the quarter appears to have accidentally left out Dade County, which is the county in the extreme northwestern part of the state.
  • North Carolina and Ohio. It was pointed out that the original design and the final actual coin of the Ohio quarter differed; the inscription "Birthplace of Aviation Pioneers" read simply "Birthplace of Aviation" on the original submitted design. The North Carolina quarter states "First Flight" although state license plates state "First in Flight". This change for the quarter is rumored to be due to conflicts with Ohio over the first flight. Ohio claims that since the Wright brothers were born in Ohio (even though Wilbur was born in Indiana), then Ohio is truly first in flight and North Carolina simply had the first flight. No doubt this conflict led to the change in Ohio's statement on their quarter as mentioned above.
  • Also, one of the final concepts for the Tennessee quarter was based on the Native American leader Sequoyah, who created the Cherokee alphabet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SatyrTN (talk • contribs) 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Removing the Georgia (outline missing Dade County) mistake leaves an orphaned reference/comparison under Indiana. 76.17.184.63 07:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

High res designs

Can someone get the high res designs from quarterdesigns.com for the 5 quarters of 2007? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.245.166.182 (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Sortable table

The sortable table totally fails to sort the table properly by the mint date / statehood date column. --WhiteDragon 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Idaho Release Date

The release date for Idaho has been listed inaccurately. If you visit the US Mint website: <http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=50_state_quarters_program>

You will discover that the latest quarter to be released was Washington and that Idaho is not yet in circulation. In addition by visiting the web address for the coin release schedule: <http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/50sq_program/index.cfm?action=schedule>

You will find that the release dates for all quarters are listed through Washington, however, the release dates for Idaho forward are not listed because none of those coins have been released as of yet. I have changed the release date for Idaho twice and it has been changed back twice. I would appreciate it if the offended party would visit the US Mint website to verify what I have said here. 69.112.158.114 10:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Evan


Idaho was released June 5, 2007 and I cited a source for it. By the way I have two Idaho state quarters in my possession. TheHoosierState89

I apologize. Today I received an Idaho state quarter in my change while at a Subway restaurant. I still don't understand why the US Mint website does not reflect the fact that Idaho has been released. Nonetheless, because I have obtained one myself through no extraordinary effort I must concede that I was wrong. -Evan

"Commemorative coins"

Calling these "commemorative coins," while accurate in the strictest sense, might imply to a reader that these are some kind of special release from the Mint for coin collectors. These are the only quarters being minted right now. I'm not sure the intro makes this clear. Funnyhat 21:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the link to the sixth reference on the page, Mint not happy with 'Silver Surfer' coin, is a dead link. I know I'm not supposed to remove the reference, seeing as the page most likely did exist at one point, but I've never really been sure as to what should be done in a situation like this, so I thought it best to bring the issue to the attention of the article's regular editors. —Mears man 12:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New Mexico - State Quarter.jpg

Image:New Mexico - State Quarter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Public domain?

We can't be sure the quarters are actually in the public domain. The mint site says, "Designs of the new quarter-dollar coins issued under the 50 State Quarters Program may be derivative works of designs covered by third-party copyrights licensed to or assigned to the U.S. Mint, or in some cases may be covered by third-party copyrights assigned to the Mint. You should not assume anything on this site is necessarily in the public domain." Superm401 - Talk 14:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Program Extended Into 2009 with DC and U.S. Territory Designs

"District of Columbia is getting a place on the quarter's flip side.

After nearly 10 years of lobbying, a measure tucked into a massive federal spending bill passed by Congress will extend the popular state quarter program to the nation's capital as well as five territories: American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands."

I can't provide a source but saw this on several news websites. Robert K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.170.144 (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Not yet. The House had passed it time after time. Just never the Senate. Just not yet. It's not news and it shouldn't be news until the Senate passes it. HkCaGu (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's almost a done deal. Rep. José Serrano, whose Approp subcommittee oversees the US Treasury budget, included the text of the bill the House has repeatedly passed as a rider to the omnibus spending bill which the House passed and the Senate amended to include additional war funding. Once the House concurrs with the Senate's amendments, the bill will be signed by the President. As I said, it's almost a done deal, and it IS news that it's come this far.Pr4ever (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Done deal. Now someone should modify the national map to include a depiction of the territories.Pr4ever (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the list say "District of Columbia" instead of Washington D.C.? HkCaGu (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I made the 2009 on the list, but don't yet know the color codes. Could some one help me out? Basketball110 00:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
We can't make the list until we get those places on the map, which I don't think is possible since those are territories way away from the United States. So until we can get a map with the new quarters included we can't include them in on the map. HoosierStateTalk 01:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Being that the map is my creation I have tried to figure out a way to make a map inclusive of the territories but have failed. The new six are quite geologically diverse that I don't think it's prudent to include them on the map for sacrifice of clarity of the current map. Perhaps a second map of just those 6 instead. Cburnett (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks an excellent idea. HoosierStateTalk 21:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Public domain

The designs may not be technically "public domain" in a legal sense, but if hundreds of millions of stamped metal discs in public circulation don't qualify as "public domain" in a common sense way then I don't know what does.

US Mint Evaluation and Selection process as of 2003 says the state submits "concepts", the mint produces "original artwork", the mint collaborates with the state on the artwork, the state chooses a preferred design and the Treasury Secretary makes the final decision. If there's original artwork on the state quarters that the US Government doesn't hold the complete rights to then somebody at the US Treasury needs to be fired. Since the US Government is (or was, once upon a time) "We The People" then we can damn well do anything we like with the designs. Anything except counterfeit them, that is.

And, for what it's worth, "The Lone Star State" is a nickname, not a title.

JeffTracy (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

DC and US Territories Quarters

Could someone put a map for the New Quarters to be issued next year Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just read on the US Mint Website that the program is called The District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarter Program. I think we should have a separate article for this new quarters and since this program is separate to the 50 States Quarters Program Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It is really a continuation of the States Quarters Program. Had the states not had their quarters, DC and the territories would not have had theirs. Remember Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Bd of Education? Separate is never equal! Pr4ever (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It may be in your mind, but according to the mint at least, it's a separate program: "This program immediately follows the 50 State Quarters® Program, which ends in 2008." Besides, I have an itching to expand such an article. The Presidential Dollars got their own article, and I say this one should too. --Triadian (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The D and P on the quarters

this is a question i can seem to get answered anywhere and i know im not supposed to put questions on here but what do the little d and p on the quarters mean? 71.244.138.82 (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See mint mark. P == Philadelphia Mint. D == Denver Mint. Cburnett (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

HR 2764

What, exactly, is the obverse of reverse? The front of the back of the coin? 96.233.187.19 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See Obverse and reverse. Nibios (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

56 State/Territory Quarters

Has any fan of this program adopted calling it something like this in response to its final year?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

a spilt is needed

Hello all,

A split is needed for this article. This is because that it appears next year's issues are separate from the current statehood quarters. Here are three sources that support this idea:

  • 1) The bill doesn't mention the 2009 issues as a continuation of the statehood quarters themselves. (in the link, use Cmd-F or Ctrl-F and search for 'Sec. 622' w/o quotes).
  • 2) The mint's website states that the 2009 quarters "immediately follows" the statehood quarters. (read more here).
  • 3) Third party products differ between the statehood quarters and the 2009 issues. An example is Whitman's statehood quarter album. The new update they released for the 2009 issues clearly labels the update as the "District of Columbia and U.S. Territories Quarters". The other five pages of the album do not have labels, just holes and state names. (See the album here).

Comments? - Thanks, Hoshie 23:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The titling of the article would most likely need to conform with what "official" sources call it. Ergo, if the U.S. Mint still calls it the "50 State Quarters" program with the territorial and D.C. quarters as an extension, the Wikipedia article should match it, keeping the title as "50 State Quarters" but with a very obvious note in the introduction of the article stating that the realm of the program encompasses the non-state parts of the U.S. And yes, maybe a separate article should be made so, if nothing more, the legal distinction is acknowledged in that fashion. For what it's worth, in regard to 3rd party sources, I have purchased coin albums that are titled "50 State Quarters" but have included in the description the provision for the possibility of more than just the states being represented at the end of the program, and so thus included extra spaces. (I am sure it is just because 50 slots didn't round neatly into three pages of 20, and so they had to rationalize it somehow... )
Just my input, is all...
Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the article needs to be split. They are separate programs. Nibios (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. The new program is not as independent or separate as you might think. DC and the territories would never get their own quarters if not for the States. If we were to split into another article, so much information will be repeated. The selection process is essentially the same, and in terms of mint's workload, it's simply a continuation. There is a new name simply because there was an old name that cannot be continued without changing. And by the way, I doubt any merchants are going to sell a six-holed storage device featuring the DC and territorial coins only--I could only see them selling an updated, 56-holed piece of cardboard or whatever. HkCaGu (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree there is little doubt that the DC/Territories program would not have come about if it weren't for the success of the State Quarters program. But that doesn't change the fact that they're still separate programs; check Hoshie's references above. By way of analogy, the movie Rocky II would never have happened if it weren't for the success of Rocky. Yet Rocky II (deservedly) has its own page. As do Rocky III, IV, etc, but I digress. Given that you can buy holders for War Nickels and Westward Journey nickels, etc, I'd be very surprised indeed if a holder was not made available for just the new series. But that last point is not relevant to splitting the article anyway. Cheers! Nibios (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Movie sequels are probably not as continuous as the "whole" quarter program. They probably didn't continually shoot Rocky and then began Rocky II before wrapping up the first one and so on. The DC/territorial quarter program, however, is an extension of the state quarter program. Instead of ending the program as previously scheduled this year, they just extended it by six coins, except that the original name could not be used and therefore a new name is required. HkCaGu (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you think this is a mere continuation? Congress and the Mint both say they are separate programs after all. Nibios (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I lived in a territory, so I've heard all the chatter. Ever since the State Quarter program began, the territories had been saying "what about us too?" for years, and numerous bills were introduced in Congress but eventually died at the end of the two years. It finally took a Puerto Rican New York congressman to ride it to another bill to get it through. And eventually it passed just in time for DC to come right after HI. HkCaGu (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
First, I would like to thank everyone who's commented; this is our little wiki in action. Let me address HkCaGu's points. HkCaGu is correct in saying there would be no 2009 issues if the statehood quarters themselves if they were a bust like the Prexibux seem to be heading. HkCaGu is also correct in saying the same process is used to produce the 2009 issues (with the exception that DC and the insular areas have a year to work on this compared to two years for the states). However HkCaGu is incorrect in saying that third parties aren't producing items *just* for the 2009 issues; they are. For example, see the 2009 State Quarter Complete Year Set; it has 12 holes for the Philly and Denver mints and labels for DC and the insular areas alone. Further to the point, I don't see a possible article as a bunch of repeats. I envision an article to be about the legislative history, the designs, their tidbits, possible errors, and stats. - Thanks, Hoshie 12:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree The idea of splitting the article is totally contrary to Rep. Serrano's legislative intent, which is a policy of inclusion. It is well settled in America, at least since 1954, that separate is inherently unequal. Pr4ever (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Disagree We might as well rename the page and split it into two sections because in the end they are under the same program but they were created at different times. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Strongly DisagreeThe Program will be continuing under the same provisions as the original House Bill. Therefore it is the same program and the article should remain the same as well.--Subman758 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gold State Quarters

I honestly don't know much about the subject, but there are state quarters plated in gold. All I could find about it is here: http://www.statequartersale.com/Qstore/Qstore.cgi?CMD=009&DEPT=1024534016&BACK=A0009A1B01024171436B1F01024171436F1I000010I1J01024173236J1, so it looks like they were actually minted this way, but I can't figure it out. Could someone who knows about this help? Ravenwolf Zero (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Treasury also produces special coins that are gold plated and are sold in proof sets. It does this for many coins. It isn't relevant to this article, but thanks for asking. Reywas92Talk 00:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Shading?

Why is it that all the quarter designs we have here have black "anti-highlighting" on their right sides? The mint's depictions of these coins doesn't have it, why must we? It is not necessary in order to view the entire design, so what purpose does it serve? Myself, I think it's very distracting. Unschool 18:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mintage?

Shouldn't this article have, or link to a place that has, mintage figures for each of the coins? Sholom (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just linked mintage table to US Mint webpage mintage table. Pr4ever (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Not only did DC and the territories get the short end of the stick by having to ewait a decade until Rep. Serrano could get them included in the commemorative quarters program, but they've been shafted by the US mint by very low mintage numbers of their quarters. It is one thing for their quarters to be minted in slightly smaller quantities because 6 coins are being issued in 2009 instead of the usual five for preceding years, but total mintage for DC, PR and especially GU has been a fraction of the mintages for every one of the 50 states. You can hardly find these coins in your pocket change! I find this highly inexplicable and discriminatory. Only seeing the table in the article has made me cognizant of this fact. Pr4ever (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find 2 quarters, a local dealer wanted $500 for one American Samoa circulated coin and $1000 for Northern Marina Islands.

There are none available on ebay at all. All sold out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.83.105 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Article merge proposal

I propose that the 50 State Quarters designs article be merged into this article, 50 State Quarters. It would be better if this article included the descriptions of the designs, rather than having that in a separate article, which is harder for the reader to find. That would mean merging four columns from the other article into the tables in this article -- Release Date, Mintage, Elements Depicted, and Engraver. Or the Mintage column could be left out, because this article already has columns for the number of coins issued in Philadelphia, Denver, and San Francisco (clad and silver). The information about the D.C. and territories quarters could be merged into the District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarter Program article. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. I would just copy the designs list into this article; I don't think the mint breakdown is that necessary. Reywas92Talk 03:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be another way to merge the two articles. Replace the table in this article with the one from the other article, thus keeping the total counts and getting rid of the breakdowns by mint. So far I don't have a strong opinion on which counts to retain. — Mudwater (Talk)

Okay, I've merged the articles. As discussed above, I replaced the table in this article with the one from the other article. So, it doesn't have the mintage figures by mint, just the totals for each quarter. If there's a consensus that we should have the totals by mint also, which there doesn't seem to be, they can be added into the table later, and here's a link to the last version of the article that had that information. As part of this I also increased the size of the images from 100px to 150px, which makes it much easier to see the details of the designs, without making the images too large. I also added a column for year, and the table is no longer sortable, which I think is appropriate for this table, and the sort by release date never worked right anyway. The other thing is that I copied the section "Additional notes on individual designs" from the other article. That seems quite worthwhile so I really think it should be merged in also. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Caps in article name

Recently an editor renamed this article, from "50 State Quarters" to "50 State quarters", with the comment, "Moved to comply with MOS; 'quarter' is not a proper noun". But "50 State Quarters" is the name of a U.S. Mint program, and that is a proper noun. So, is the article named after the government program, or the coins? If the program, it should be renamed back the way it was. If the coins, then "50 state quarters" might be more appropriate. I'm thinking the article is about the program and so should be called "50 State Quarters", but I'd like to hear what other editors think. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this discussion. This is a tricky issue, because it could go either way. It was my belief that "50 States" was the name of the series, while "quarters" was simply the denomination, similar to "Seated Liberty quarter" or "Buffalo nickel". I could be mistaken, though. This is an issue that really needs a good, solid consensus to figure out for sure. This is actually a very interesting question.-RHM22 (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean about other coin names, like "Buffalo nickel", but I'm pretty sure the program was called "50 State Quarters". I also agree that the answer to this question is not particularly obvious. Also, whatever is decided about this should probably also apply to the article currently named America the Beautiful quarters. And then there's District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarter Program. — Mudwater (Talk) 04:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the "District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarter Program" should definitely have the capitalized "Quarter", because that article uses the entire name of the legislation and not just the name of the coin. It's when you get into the "America the Beautiful" and "50 State" series that it gets a little tricky. Perhaps all articles should be moved to a page titled with their respective legislation. For instance, what is currently "50 State quarters" would be "50 State Commemorative Coin Program", since there are no capitalization dilemmas there.-RHM22 (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I think we should first agree on what the three article titles should be, then work on the capitalization. Looking at the "Deciding on an article title" and "Common names" sections of Wikipedia:Article titles, the title of an article should be the commonly used name of the subject, and the name that most readers would look for when trying to find the article. In my opinion, the three articles should therefore have these names, ignoring capitalization for the moment: "50 State Quarters", "America the Beautiful Quarters", and "District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarters". — Mudwater (Talk) 14:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that. I can't move the D.C./territories one myself, though, because I don't have that authority (there are redirect pages already).-RHM22 (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "Quarters" should be capitalized in all references to this program. There is no such thing as a 50 State quarter like there is a Buffalo quarter. There are only individual state quarters. When referring to individual state quarters, it is appropriate to use the lower case "q" (as in the "Maryland quarter"). But "50 State Quarters" refers to the program established by Congress and executed by the Mint. In both cases, "Quarters" is capitalized as a proper noun. How do we get this corrected? Rittenhoused (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Quarters" in absolutely part of the program name, also part of the registered trademark. Same with the ATBs. http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/50sq_program/?action=designs_50sq Bobby I'm Here, Are You There?

Well, that is part of the title of the program, but the question is really whether or not the title of the article is the project name or a name for quarters themselves.-RHM22 (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have renamed the three articles, because it looks like everyone found the proposed new names to be the best choices. So, the articles are now called 50 State Quarters, America the Beautiful Quarters, and District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarters. (To do this I just used the regular article move feature. The new names already existed, but they were redirects without edit histories. See Wikipedia:Moving a page for more info.)

Footnote formatting

In general it's considered preferable to combine multiple citations of a single reference into one footnote. This is discussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)#Reference name (naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once). In this article I did that recently with the "50 State Quarters Report" -- look at footnote 7 here -- but after that another editor separated them out again, here. Also, it's better to link to the reference from the name of the reference being cited, like I did, rather than have the link be a separate unlabelled number like the other editor did. So, I think the footnotes should be combined again, the way I did it. Anyone else have an opinion on this? — Mudwater (Talk) 18:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize this before, but there's a bot called Citation bot that automatically reformats some citations, and one of the things it does is to combine multiple citations of a single reference into one footnote. The bot did that recently for the citations I was talking about, with this edit. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mintage quantities

Right before the table of images and state-by-state quantities, it is said The official total, according to the U.S. Mint, was 34,797,600,000 coins. However, when summed up the figures from the table, I got 34,803,200,000. The difference is only 5.6 million, roughly 1/100 of the smallest mintage, but it still is a difference. 82.141.125.149 (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV regarding Treasury's viewpoint

There seems to be an anti-Treasury Department agenda in some of the text. Examples included "In an attempt to derail the legislation", "Such studies are a time-honored device used in Washington to placate proponents of proposals while using the delay to kill them", "However, several Treasury staff who knew the conclusions Treasury sought were included". I'll remove the most obvious instances, where there's a clear way to do so without removing information. Superm401 - Talk 17:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The tone of the article is more like support in favor of the quarters and program, not necessarily "anti-Treasury". I've rewritten some sentences, but additional copy edits would help. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
It would appear that, according to reliable sources, there was substantial opposition from Treasury appointees as well as staff at the U.S. Mint. However that can be made evident, without prose. Group29 (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii Quarter?

The Hawaii quarter entry says "This is the first and only U.S. coin to feature royalty or a monarch of any kind." Why doesn't the Columbian Exposition quarter dollar count as featuring a royalty or a monarch? It features Queen Isabella of Spain. 205.167.170.18 (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Columbian Exposition quarter was released only as a commemorative coin, and was never circulated. I suppose it the Hawaii quarter is not the first U.S. coin to feature royalty, but it is the first circulated coin that does so. Crohall (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The Columbian Exposition quarter featured Queen Isabella, and for that matter the Hawaii commemorative half dollar also featured Kamehameha; but the Hawaii quarter is the first business-strike (non-commemorative) U.S. coin to feature a monarch. The text has since been corrected to state it that way. 67.174.98.77 (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't

I removed the incorrect claim that the Illinois quarter was the first coin to depict both Washington and Lincoln; it is actually in fact the 4th to do so (the 1991 Mt. Rushmore commemoratives all featured both Lincoln and Washington, plus Theodore Roosevelt and Jefferson besides). The South Dakota quarter became the 5th to do so. 67.174.98.77 (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Since those coins were depicting Mt. Rushmore, they didn't depict Washington or Lincoln. They depicted a depiction of Washington and Lincoln (plus Theodore Roosevelt and Jefferson besides). That's the signpost up ahead. Your next stop: The Technicality Zone. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Obverse?

As of the State quarters through the America the Beautiful quarters, the law (or act or whatever brought about the mountain of new designs) states that the non-George side of the coin is the obverse, so that each state design, DC/territory, Parks design is the obverse and Washington is the reverse of the coin. I am not that good with legal wording, but if someone would check that it may need to be corrected as all 3 articles list the Washington side as the obverse as if it were the pre-1999 series and that may be incorrect. shadzar-talk 23:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 50 State Quarters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 50 State Quarters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:50_State_quarters/Archive_1&oldid=1136480334"