User talk:Dove1950/Archive 1

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
You can experiment in the test area.
You can get help at the Help Desk
Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

Hi!

Just wanted to say that I've seen all your recent edits to the various currency articles - got them all on my watchlist - and just thought I'd tell you you're doing great work. Good stuff! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

		An Award
		For your numerous contributions to the various articles on currencies, I ( ナイトスタリオン ✉) award you this minor barnstar.

Oh, my, I wish I'd thought of that :) Treat it well :) Joe I 21:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Oh, maybe I should say: Welcome and thank you for the interest in WikiProject:Numismatics. Feel free to make yourself at home. Which, I see you have, GREAT! I'm sure anyone of the members of the project would be more than happy to assist you in anything you should need.

If the mood suits you, you can add this to your user page(along with your shiny barnstar)

Which ends up lookin like so:

This user is a member of the Numismatics WikiProject, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of numismatics on Wikipedia. Please feel free to join.

See ya round soon. :) Joe I 23:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

For all your work on currencies arouind the world. Great work! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another "good work!"

I have an urge to thank you on the job you did on Yugoslav dinar. You did a marvelous job! --Dijxtra 17:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

another thank you

I'm impressed and amazed at the quantity and quality of the work you've done for the Numismatics Project. Thank you.

Would you consider tackling the Gulden (historical denomination) page? You seem to have access to some great information about historical currencies, and I got completely lost when trying to figure out if there is a separate Austrian gulden and German gulden.

Either way, keep up the great work! Mom2jandk 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While we're requesting, I would be very grateful if you could also split the Perper article into one for the Montenegrin perper and one for the Serbian perper... Thanks!

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, thanks a lot!

I'm actually not sure that this is a good idea. For one, are the terms "Serbian perper" and "Montenegrin perper" actually in use? Nikola 21:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about this should probably occur at WikiProject Numismatics/Style; consensus is to call currencies "Somewhereian Währung", with Währung being the local name of the currency.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably like to see Perun (money). Nikola 00:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which is now at Montenegrin perun per our naming standards.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Numismatics Project

I was wondering if you'd mind adding {{Numismaticnotice}} to the talk pages of the new pages you create. I really, really appreciate the work you're doing, and don't want to sound like I'm complaining at all. I'll do it if you don't want to (and will go through the ones you've already done, as I get time). Also, please don't capitalize denominations in the article (I'm not sure if you've already stopped doing this -- sorry if you have).

I also appreciate your comments on the few issues we've discussed. Would you mind looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Categories. The categories need to be reorganized (or at least implemented consistently). I've put up a proposal, but would really like to get feedback before I start making any changes.

Thanks. Mom2jandk 21:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Numismatics

Dear WikiProject Numismatics member:

You may have noticed the edits made by user:mom2jandk, and you may have also noticed that I have reverted most of them. I would like to leave this note as an explanation.

mom2jandk is a new user and a clearly enthusiastic member of WikiProject:Numismatics. However, he/she has made several changes (specifically to the categorization scheme) that I reverted for various reasons. Among them, he/she:

Moved most of the articles in Category:United States Mint to Category:United States mints. This seems to serve no purpose; the United States Mint is the proper name of a government agency (that you are all no doubt familiar with) and its category was created as a home for articles relating to it.

Created Category:United States currency designers. At the moment there does not seem to be anyone in this category who does not already fit into Category:United States Mint engravers, therefore making it a redundant category.

Created Category:United States Mint officers. This is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, while any number of persons employed by the Mint might be correctly referred to as "officers," I've never seen the term used. Secondly, virtually all of the articles in the category would fit under Category:United States Mint engravers or Category:Directors of the United States Mint. Thirdly, even if there are articles about persons who were neither engravers or directors, there would likely not be enough to warrant a subcategory, and therefore such an article should be placed in Category:United States Mint.

Created several other categories that either do not fit or fit awkwardly into the categorization scheme.

Nominated several categories for deletion, including United States Mint, United States Mint engravers, and others.
- On the deletion vote for Cat:United States Mint, he seems to be confused as to the purpose of the category; it is, as I said, for articles relating to the government agency known as the United States Mint. There are mints in the United States that are not part of the United States Mint (i.e. the Franklin Mint) and his confusion over this fact seems to be the impetus for the nomination.
- You might also notice that he nominated cat:Directors of the United States Mint; his explanation is that he broadened the category to "United States Mint officers" so that a Superintendent could be included. The "superintendent of the Mint" to which he referred was Roswell K. Colcord, who was superintendent of the Carson City Mint; there is no such office as "superintendent" for the entire United States Mint (or, if there is, it is distinct from Director of the Mint.)

After reading this fairly lengthy message, you might get the impression that I am attacking either mom2jandk or his/her edits; this is not the case. I have a great deal of admiration for him/her as a new user who is not afraid to jump in and try to improve Wikipedia and the Numismatics project. I hope he/she continues to contribute, and I believe he/she has a great deal to offer. This message is quite long because I wanted to explain the specifics of the categories (many of which, incidentally, were created by me.)

Note that I placed merge tags on most of mom2jandk's categories.

It goes without saying that, if there are any categories that should be altered and/or deleted, by all means make such changes, regardless of whether I or anyone else created them; neither I nor my edits are perfect.

Apologies for using he/she; I assume mom2jandk's user name reflects her role as a mother but I wasn't completely certain.

Thank you all and I look forward to continued work with you in the future. Paul 06:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rixdollar

Thank you for creating the article on the Rixdollar. As an admin, I'd like to ask that you create for yourself a user page for what is admittedly a rather selfish reason - the absence of a userpage acts as a false positive on my "possible neophyte editor whose every contribution must be scrutinized and possibly deleted"-sense. So this takes more time away from cleaning up the articles.

And I'm pleased to say that I caught the cognate with "rijks" before reading that far. DS 17:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your move

You moved Czechoslovak crown to Czechoslovak koruna recently - which was bad for one reason: It was a cut-and-paste-move, which destroys the article's edit history. You should revert this move and wait for an admin to go through the backlog at WP:RM and it do it properly. Cheers! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the method is not perfect but much of the article's history was in the koruna article already as it had been there in the past. Plus, there's someone going around with a bee in their bonnet regarding koruna vs crown, making a swift move seem sensible. I'll avoid such moves in the future when possible. If you know how to bring together the histories of both articles, I'd be greatful if you could either sort it out or explain what needs doing.
Dove1950 13:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'd basically need to have an admin make a history merge. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 14:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mozambican metica

May I ask where did you find that Mozambican metica started in 1975? My catalog lists an unissued series dated 1976. [1] also says the central bank started issuing notes in 1976. [2], which is a very comprehensive source, says "1 Mozambican metical = 1 Mozambican escudo in 1980", which skips metica. Could you verify? --Chochopk 13:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information came from the coins dated 1975 and denominated in metica. However, it seems likely that these were not issued (they are listed with prices in excess of $100). As you point out, no banknotes were issued in metica. I'll change the metica article to a proposed currency and relink the escudo and metical articles.
Dove1950 18:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. My coin catalog should arrive in a few days. By the way, I changed the succession box again to fit the style guide line. If you disagree with the style, you are welcome to join the discussion. In case you haven't noticed, Ingrid and I are working on a big project on succession boxes. Any help, big or small, would be much appreciated. I'm impressed how you managed to find information on such an obscure currency like Korean yang. --Chochopk 01:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and Ingrid have much more experience than me with the nuts and bolts of wikipedia. I'll happily assist with the info in your succession boxes and look forward to seeing the results of the more complex situations. Germany is going to be an absolute doozy!
Dove1950 22:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your move of Lebanese pound

I reverted your move and edits on the Lebanese pound article. You should've discussed this move before doing it. Anyway, I strongly recommend we use the "pound" name instead of "Livre" because it's is widely used in English (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)), but it would be good to add to the article that "Lebanese Livre" is used in currencies. CG 16:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the recently updated numismatics style guide, CG is correct. For circulating currencies, the consensus was to use ISO 4217. No one could agree whether there should be exceptions for the strange ones (e.g., Franc Congolais), or if the country should be added for the ones that ISO doesn't include. But Lebanon is not one of the potentially controversial ones. Ingrid 03:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISO4217 is using a non-existent name in the cases of LBP and AWG. We've already corrected this error for AWG, we should do the same for LBP and not replicate ISO4217's mistakes. If this means applying the rules set out for currencies not covered by ISO4217 (which are the ones I was refering to) then this ought to be explicitly set out.
Dove1950 14:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. We should highlight the fact that ISO 4217 is, in some cases, wrong or uses inexplicable currency names. I'm all for establishing our own, sensible, user-friendly naming convention. —Nightstallion (?) 21:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No system will be perfect, but how about this? We put the country name first, as an adjective. Then the currency name. If the currency's name is given on the money in the Latin alphabet, we use that, together with any other names appearing. If not, we give an acceptable transliteration into the Latin script with a note on alternatives (from which come redirects) and, wherever possible, the actual name in the original script. That way, some one coming in looking for a currency should have the best chance of finding what they're looking for and, when they've found it, get the basic information up front. I think that's pretty much what we've got now (barring names in original scripts) but there are no doubt a few which need sorting out as we go along.
Dove1950 23:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that (and the reason the discussion went on so long at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics is that sometimes the common name does not match this pattern. For example, the New Taiwan dollar and Singapore dollar (as opposed to Taiwanese and Singaporean), and apparently Lebanese pound instead of Lebanese livre. Wikipedia naming conventions are clear that common names should be used. The vote was overwhelming to use ISO to determine the common name, although problems with this approach were raised and not addressed. I see the logic of your approach, and like it myself, but we have to accept the conventions of Wikipedia as a whole, and the consensus of the project. Since the vote, my approach has been to leave current currencies where they are (I'm not going to be the one to implement the ISO change or figure out exceptions, etc), and put in redirects for the "wrong" ones. Older ones, I've been renaming to <adj country> <local denom>. I do think it would be useful if you (or someone else) wanted to spell out exceptions to ISO, but I don't want to spend the time or effort doing it myself. Ingrid 03:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested

Hi, I noticed that you're creating a lot of currency stubs for historical currencies. I'm very excited, as it will augment the succession box project a lot. So I'm wondering if you could take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Sandbox/Succession, and add stubs for the currencies that you deem appropriate. Thanks.

And also, I saw you created Oceanian pound, for the Japanese occupation currency. Have you thought about how to deal with those Japanese occupation currency else where? For example, the occupation Malayan dollar replaced a then existing Malayan dollar, how would you name the occupation currency? --Chochopk 14:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already had a look at your boxes project and I'll do as you ask when I get a chance. As to the other Japanese occupation issues, the Malayan dollars issued by the Japanese can be dealt with in the Malayan dollar article. The same goes for the Burmese rupee, Phillipine peso and Indonesian gulden. The others have their own articles.
Dove1950 21:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new categories

The category redesign has begun. Modern historical currencies should now go into Category:Modern obsolete currencies instead of Category:Historical currencies. Also currencies should be put into Category:Currencies of the Americas, Category:Currencies of Europe, Category:Currencies of Europe, or Category:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific as well. If you have any category questions, feel free to ask on my talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Categories. Ingrid 03:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's worse than that. It's split into Ancient/Medieval/Modern, with Modern split into circulating and modern obsolete. I'm not sure how to split medieval and modern (or ancient and medieval for that matter). The templates that existed in the project before I arrived, and some discussion since then gave me the impression that that's how coins/currencies are generally split (my interest is only modern, so I don't know). Medieval says that it ends around 1500. Anything that was around before and after can go into both categories (as Azerbaijani manat and a few others are in both Category:Currencies of Europe and Category:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific). Ingrid 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gulden

Thank you for being so patient with my mistakes regarding the gulden. I don't think I understand it enough to update the succession box. I think I'll take it out, since I'd rather have it missing than wrong. If you'd like to work with me on making it correct, I'd be happy to, but I don't want to overwhelm you with naive questions (since I really know nothing about pre-20th century currencies that I haven't read on Wikipedia). Ingrid 21:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]