User talk:RHM22/Archive 3

User rights management

You are now a reviewer and rollbacker. Please read up on these features. If you do not want them, ask me or another admin to remove them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll be sure to understand the guidelines and evaluate the situation carefully before using these.-RHM22 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ivory trade

I commented at the article talk. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Green Party (United States)

Hi! In this edit you say the new user deleted refs. Which refs? I saw she added two paragraphs and rephrased the first sentence of the pre-existing one. Did I miss something? Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! You're definitely right. Sorry about that! I hadn't noticed that she created a new paragraph. Thanks for letting me know, and I'll restore her edits right away.-RHM22 (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The devs have been talking for years about improving the diffs to make it easier to spot stuff like that one, I really wish they'd get around to it! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. Of course, there was thoughtlessness on my part, but it is difficult to tell without looking really closely.-RHM22 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NMSU Aggies Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NMSU Aggies Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 06:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RHM22. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions.
Message added 22:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Triple Crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Triple crown upon RHM22 for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC, particularly in the area of U.S. numismatics. Thank you for all your contributions to the project! – SMasters (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This user has a Triple Crown.

Note on Wiki Propagandists

USER: Cordelia Vorkosigan appears to be a cover ACCOUNT for USER: CordeliaNaismith. Any pro-Israeli propaganda being spread by this user in Wikipedia should be taken in that context.Cardovus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC).

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your contributions and hard work on the encyclopedia, I am pleased to present RHM22 with this Tireless Contributor Barnstar. SMasters (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have been on Wikipedia for nearly a year (22 Feb 2010), and have been working quietly in the background in getting articles to a high standard. For this, I believe you deserve this barnstar. Happy Anniversary in advance, and keep up the good work! Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Since your writing skills are at a very high level, you might want to join the Guild of Copy Editors, or participate in our next backlog elimination drive. Lots of barnstars up for grabs. You can use catscan to find article of interest to you. Do consider joining. – SMasters (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! I believe I will join your order, but I'll have to wait until I'm finished with an article I have at FAC first.-RHM22 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! See you there. – SMasters (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Idea

I finally got around to reading The Numismatist and in the article on the Oregon gold pieces, it mentioned that Congress authorized a mint at The Dalles, though it never actually operated. We have no article on that. Wanna do a joint project?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Which issue is that in? I didn't read the latest one yet, but I have it right here. Do you know of any other books or papers that might have some information about it?-RHM22 (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article mentions a book which discusses the Mint. Apparently Oregon had a gold rush. Who knew?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

[1]--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of it! I found this link on the article for The Dalles. Apparently, the building is now some type of wine store!-RHM22 (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I found the article. That's a very interesting story! Too bad the article was so light on solid information about the Mint. I found one of the books referenced on Google here. The author was Q. David Bowers, who seems to be behind every good numismatic story these days! By the way, I ordered one of his books from the ANA library a while ago, but it didn't seem to go through the first time, so I just tried again today. I think the title is Encyclopedia of Silver Dollars Volume I or something like that. It looked pretty good. Have you ever heard of it?-RHM22 (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I created a sandbox with all the references so far in it.-RHM22 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but you are right, he writes so much stuff ... of course, we do not know if some kid in the back office does the actual writing, it would explain the careless errors I've found in the guide books to series.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed some of his work is really not good, while some is excellent.-RHM22 (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll start looking later on, don't have a huge amount of time right now. Images may be a problem, I don't have immediate plans to visit Oregon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, my thoughts exactly. I did a Google and Flickr check for free images with no results. I might be able to find an old PD photo of it with a little luck, though.-RHM22 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, with luck there will be a 1922 book with an image ... perhaps the ANA library has something as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing a review of Morgan dollar. I will post it at the FAC in due course. Nothing terrible, but a bit of work will be needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I look forward to your review.-RHM22 (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What you need to keep in mind is that Bland and Allison did not care about the silver dollars. What they cared about is the Federal government purchasing and monetizing silver. The silver dollars themselves were the least of their concerns. They wanted inflation, which would decrease the value of debt and so help out farmers by making it easier for them to pay their mortgages.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed that part. Before, it said that several bills were introduced to the House in order to begin mintage of the dollar, but I changed that to say that several bills were introduced to allow for free silver. Allison didn't want free coinage, and I suspect that his sponsoring the bill was probably a compromise of some sort.-RHM22 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The NY Times archives from that era are free. Not suggesting you need to add anything from there, just saying it might be worth reading. Since Hayes was going to veto anything anyway, they needed to get two thirds of both houses on side, so compromise was in order. I will give the article a final read through a little later on this evening.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give the Times a check later! Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. Sorry if I came off as rude or anything in my responses.-RHM22 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You didn't. I'll give Flowing Hair a read.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassadors

Hey I saw that you gave SMasters a barnstar, and click on your user page and was impressed with what I saw. Would you be interested in the WP:Online Ambassadors program? It's a great opportunity to help college students get involved in the community and give back a bit. Hope you consider applying, and good job editing! Sadads (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise and the offer, but I'm afraid that I might not be the best person for an Online Ambassador. Though I have made some contributions that I'm very proud of, I'm not certain that I can guide an inexpirienced user through the maze of policies, because I'm only just learning them myself! The program really looks like a good cause, though, so I really wish you great success with it!-RHM22 (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Hello RHM22, a very warm welcome to the Guild of Copy Editors. We are pleased to have you join us! To start, you may want to copy edit an article from our Requests page, or pick one from our backlog. If you need any assistance, feel free to leave a note on our talk page, or you can contact any of our coordinators. If you are new to copy editing, you may want to join our Mentorship program. You may also want to participate in our Backlog elimination drives. Below, you will find list of useful links for your convenience. Guild home How to copy edit Membership department Guild coordinators Mailing list Mentorship program Backlog elimination drives Requests page Discussions Thanks again for joining the Guild, and do make yourself at home. – Your GOCE coordinators: Diannaa (Talk), Chaosdruid (talk), The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs and Slon02

Article Anton Mosimann at DYK

Thank you for doing the necessary there. William Avery (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

DYKs are the only types of reviews I can accomplish with any certainty! It might be because I don't nominate a lot of DYKs, but I actually like the new rule. I used to go through occasionally and review some nominations to help with the backlog, but I don't anymore because they all get reviewed so quickly!-RHM22 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Flowing Hair dollar

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible project

Laser Brain has suggested Kennedy half dollar. As it is Be Nice to the Delegates Week, I have no great objection, but as a modern coin, sources could be a problem (there is a Bowers guide, shared with the Franklin). Any interest in helping work this one up?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like an interesting challenge! I came across some interesting articles in an issue of Coin World last year (which I think I still have around somewhere). I went over to look at the discussion on LB's talk page, where he mentions the mintages. I'll make the sub article for those today.-RHM22 (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think sub articles are a good idea for any series that ran longer than ten years or so, just due to the length of the table, and it is a pain in the neck inputting and formatting data. I will order the Bowers book, which seems to be the only book. The NY Times archives should have a few things to say, I suspect.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it takes a while to convert the data from list to sortable tables. I already did a really long one for Washington quarters.-RHM22 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully we can find a source that says that its main use these days is in casinos to pay off on 3-2 bets at roulette and blackjack, though some casinos have fifty cent or $2.50 chips. I remember seeing a slot machine at a casino which used them, but casinos have mostly gone to paper only, with a payoff ticket instead of coins spilling out. I am not a gambler, but the gaming tokens have always interested me though I do not collect them (I have a few from hotels with casinos I've stayed at).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The casinos were probably the first step to the cashless society. These days it's all old ladies sticking credit cards or something in the slot machines. It really loses the allure when a piece of paper comes out instead of a bunch of coins. I'll check my sources for that information.-RHM22 (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Found a Times article from 1979 with a couple of interesting quotes. I can't email you the article, though, it is from before the Times went to full-text, so it is just an image. A Mint official speculates that if the Franklin had continued to be struck, they would not have dropped out of circulation, the whole hoarding angle. BTW at the casinos, you put paper money in the slot, but it gives you at cashout a slip, and they have machines that will dispense your payout, some of them double as ATMs. One of these days they will figure out a way you can put chips in a machine and get back cash, perhaps they'd need an electronic chip within the chip itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

[2], though a subsequent letter to the editor points out he got it wrong about the Franklin being minted for 25 years, which is why the legislation was needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I'm surprised they don't have that already. As for the Franklin, I agree to an extent. In my opinion, the half stopped circulating initially because of people keeping souvenirs of Kennedy, but that's not enough to completely remove them from circulation. I think what really did it is that they went to 40% silver while all other denominations had none. By the time the silver was removed entirely in 1971, vending machines didn't take them and people were used to not seeing them in circulation.-RHM22 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll check out that article now.-RHM22 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I can't read it.-RHM22 (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I can email you the contents later as it is in full text. Got to pack up right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No rush. I'm still working on the mintage figures.-RHM22 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We will need a new image of the Bicentennial reverse, the existing one has no real source information and will for sure get flagged at FAC. Next time I'm at a bank, I'll ask for a roll or two of half dollars, odds are there will be at least one in there and I'll scan or photograph it. Obviously not before Tuesday!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I have a proof one around somewhere that would make a nice image. I'll look around and see if I can find it.-RHM22 (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That would work. I've got the three coin silver unc set, but still in packaging.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Scratch the proof idea. I thought the lucite packaging would be ok, but it causes too much glare on the coins to get a decent image. I'm sure I have an old circulated bicentennial lying around somewhere, though, so I'll see if I can find that.-RHM22 (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I was able to take some pretty decent scans of a lightly circulated example. Scans are here and here.-RHM22 (talk)

That's great. I think the key is to have the reverse, as the obverse is only a minor variation on the theme. My colleague Connormah isn't terribly active these days, I think he's busy with school, but when I get a chance I'll ask him to delete the margins. I think we can use the same format as the usual coin articles, but we'll need a section, or perhaps a subsection under "Production" to discuss the hoarding and the basic destruction of the half dollar as a circulating coin by the tumultuous events of 1964-1965, between the silver getting lowered and the demand and hoarding ... Gresham's law in operation, me thinks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, whoever decided that it would be a good idea to leave silver in one denomination must have been fired. What do you mean the margins? Did you mean the blank area around the coin in the image? If so, I can remove those easily. I can edit images alright (nothing too advanced), but I'm not so good at taking them. I was able to take those because I just got a scanner and I'm taking scans of everything!-RHM22 (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. I'm pretty bad with graphics, I am afraid. And I'm a poor photographer, which is a pity because of the photo opportunities I get (archives, concerts, that kind of thing).--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You should consider a scanner for archival stuff. I'm awful at photos, but scanning anything paper is really easy with a scanner. The program I use even lets me select which dpi I want to use, so I can make the scans as detailed as I want. I'll work on removing those margins now.-RHM22 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've started doing a scanner, I took it on my last trip to the Nixon Library. Very useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I cropped the images. What do you think? I can't remove the shadow, but I cropped out all the unnecessary background. Let me know if you ever need any images edited. I can crop, resize, combine and darken/lighten or remove the background from images. I can also lift them from old PD Google Books or other online sources where the image is hard to save by right clicking. I don't have Photoshop, though, so I can't do anything super complicated like making translucent backgrounds.-RHM22 (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

They'll do. Great! I can usually manage to figure out how to get an image, and even managed to put that 17-second clip that was on the main page a couple of days ago, it is from a 30-minute video. But I look at what the kids can do without thinking and despair.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(od)Yeah! Wiki markup frustates me all the time, and everything is made as easy as possible. I can only imagine the difficulty of writing the code for a website from scratch! Video is one thing I know almost nothing about. I've been tinkering with computer images for years, so that's why I'm not bad at editing those.-RHM22 (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, by the way, do you know how to remove GANs? LB gave me permission to nominate Sac for FA, but I need to remove it the GAN first. I looked all around and I can't find anything, and I asked on the GA talk page, but there aren't any bites yet.-RHM22 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If it hasn't been edited by anyone else, I can delete the page, then just delete the template from the article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be great! There hasn't been any edits or reviews on the GAN page.-RHM22 (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Just delete the GA template from the article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the template.-RHM22 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to do a review tonight. Just as a passing matter, you definitely need to expand the reception section. Limiting it to senators seems ... limiting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a good idea. I already added a segment about the coins sitting in vaults and their popularity in Uruguay, but it probably could use more. Do you know if NYT has any design critiques from either the original or the redesign? That's mainly what I need I think.-RHM22 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but here are some articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The only possible thing there would be the one guy that calls the design "handsome". It's a lot harder than I thought to find any commentary on the design, negative or positive. There's plenty of information about how unpopular they are, but very little commentary on the design itself.-RHM22 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wonder if the Commission on Fine Arts did a report.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but I have no idea where to find that.-RHM22 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(od)You could call them tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll send an e-mail first and see if I can get the information electronically.-RHM22 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Plus the ANA library ... and maybe the Mint press office?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing break

I will be getting the Bowers book on Thursday, it seems the only book resource, though when I am back home next week I will check my other refs for Kennedy half dollar information. BTW, I went to the bank yesterday and bought all 18 Kennedy half dollars they had (I am amazed they were open on President's Day). As the branch is in Sacramento, they were predominately Denver (we should make it clear that no S coins have ever been struck for circulation). Two were Bicentennial, one blank one D. The earliest was 1971, the most recent 2001, a majority are from the 1990s.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, 1971-D has the highest mintage at 302,097,424.-RHM22 (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not surprising. I imagine they were trying to mint enough to replace all the silver clad, anticipating another Gresham's law incident with the silver being hoarded. Which did not happen, you could still find a silver clad or two if you got some at the bank at least into the 1990s. Now I'm sure they are all gone, with silver where it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I will try to do some writing once I have the Bowers book in hand.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There are still some, but not that many. The mintages are in the mainspace at Kennedy half dollar mintage figures.-RHM22 (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well done on that. My first three coins were relatively short series (not longer than thirty years, and with few mintmarks). Definitely need to be in a sub article if longer.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Kennedy series is definitely too long to be in a regular article.-RHM22 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope with the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy half dollar coming up in 3 years, they will do something about the design. Kennedy's head is much too big and I don't like that dent on his cheek. Coining technology has advanced, there could be a much better design, and who would care? The coin doesn't circulate anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I just hope they don't use an awful forward facing portrait like they did on the nickel. I really liked the 2005 Jefferson design, but the 2006 and after is ridiculously ugly.-RHM22 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think they could come up with a much better profile, including shoulders. We no longer need to decapitate our presidents. Or even given the oodles of room, even perhaps Kennedy at a podium, remembering his inaugural address.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe a 3/4 or perhaps full bust of Kennedy was originally considered but rejected. Personally, I would welcome Franklin back on the half dollar. There are too many modern presidents on the coins that don't really stack up to the founders.-RHM22 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As a Penn graduate, I'd agree. Our coins have been hit with recentism, anniversaryism, and political correctness. In the images of political literature from the 1950s which I have, politician's heads are often cut off in a way which would be disconcerting today. Take a look at this for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I got the half dollars book. It doesn't say much about the history, alas, but we'll manage.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh well. I checked all my possible references and I didn't find much. I think we'll be ok, though. We definitely will if I can find my special 1960s Coin World issue from last year. Did you keep yours?-RHM22 (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No. I've ordered a Coin World Almanac from a few years back, maybe it will have some usefulness.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of a pain to keep them all. I'll check again later to see if I can find it. Any CW actually from the '60s would probably be great too, if there are any in your almanac.-RHM22 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it will be there when I get home late Monday night. I've found a NY Times article 12/15/63 which mentions stuff like the act of 1890 and the need for congressional approval. It's a pay article, alas, and I only get an image so I can't shoot it over to you..--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) I've also ordered the earlier Roberts/Gasparro medal on which Roberts at least based his design (eBay, I believe the Mint still sells them, but I saw the smaller medal at only ten bucks and that will give us an illustration in an article probably short on such things).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What is interesting is that the Times article says that the 1890 act was put in because coin designs were changing almost at whim. I think the opposite is true, that coin designs were moribund and Congress was sending a message. It exempted the nickel and dollar from the 25 year rule because those were the only denominations still struck which would have been subject to it. The silver had been the same, more or less, since 1837 and the gold for at least 40 years, depending on how you count it, plus the cent for 30 years. A dim echo got through to the Mint, which set up the design competition whose failure led to the Barber coinage.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about the Kennedy medal. I think it'll be a great addition to the article. That's a very unusual assertion from the Times article. Why would they think that was the reasoning behind the act?-RHM22 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, because even when the Times had a numismatics columnist, he was usually an idiot and very careless. They combined it with the stamps in the 70s and eliminated it entirely in the 80s.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like CBS News is a more reliable source of information than that column.-RHM22 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I always found it frustrating as a teen in the late 70s seeing the stupid things they'd write ... apparently there is an article on the Kennedy half dollar in the 60s issue, about the Coin World correspondent standing next to Mint Director Adams during the first strike ceremony in March 1964, they began striking simultaneously at Phila. and Denver.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I found some more information on the U.S. Mint website. A letter detailing the experiences striking the half dollars, the legislation authorizing it and a press release.-RHM22 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice find. I was just reading a NY Times article about the distribution of the new coin. Block long lines for it in Washington, rationing of it all over. Sounds like the Lincoln cent.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew that it was a popular coin, but I didn't know it was that popular. Odd that the Roosevelt dime or Eisenhower dollar didn't experience similar popularity. Kennedy's assassination probably played a big part, since Roosevelt died in office naturally.-RHM22 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I went to the bank on the date of issue of the Susan B, and there was no line.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing random paragraphs as I come across interesting stuff. Feel free to join in. I think eventually we will have an "Inception and design" section followed by "Release and production".--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll make a few paragraphs in my sandbox and then incorporate them into the article. How about level 2 headers for "inception" and "production" with level 3s for "design (selection?)" and "release"?-RHM22 (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We could, though I don't know how much we will find about the selection. It looks like they were going to run with that design almost from day 1, since it was a design they already had "in house" and had already received the approval of Kennedy himself. At this point, we can label sections anything we want within reason, we can always readjust it later.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Second editing break

How are we going to do the infobox? There are three different weights and compositions, and the way the template is rigged, the measures are automatically amended to the end of the number.-RHM22 (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(od)I have no idea. What do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is most important to have today's specifications there. We can add the past specifications in some other way. Btw, mind you keep an eye on the sources I'm using in the 1969 period, they also involve the genesis of the Eisenhower dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Those will be great when I start work on Eisenhower dollar. As for the infobox, I agree that we should use the current weights and measures. There's still a problem, though, because of the silver proof sets.-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You might want to add a bit to the Morgan dollar article too, the same act did for all. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Watch you citation practices please the info about the three denoms is not from Bowers.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add the cite after the semicolon. Remember, this is a work in progress, so we'll both go through before it's done and fix any errors.-RHM22 (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but citation errors are the hardest to find, so I prefer to begin as I mean to go on! Let me explain what I was doing with the Inception paragraphs. My idea is to avoid an overly long paragraph by starting with Kennedy's death (almost certainly the best way to start the article body, you drop the reader in with something he has heard of), and then go through the congressional stuff to enactment. Then come back with a second paragraph, what has been going on at the mint, from Adams talking to Roberts, on through, ending with the dies being ready on January 2. I think you'll see it is an improvement. I dislike paragraphs of more than about seven sentences, btw and try to keep it to five, good old fashioned seventh grade training.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Some things:

• Something definitive on why the coin shortage of 1964 happened. The Mint basically blamed it on hoarders and coin collectors, I'm a bit dubious. I mean, how do you hoard a billion half dollars, to say nothing of the other denominations.
• The article on the bicentennial designs is United States bicentennial coinage. I wrote it years ago but never did much with it, so it is poor quality, but it is there.
• I'd like to find something more on the elimination of half dollars from vending machines. I remember seeing those old big dollar changers (the big brown ones, if you recall) had a slot in which you could put a half dollar and get back smaller change. Plainly in the six years the half dollar was basically unavailable, they stopped making vending machines that took half dollars, but we need something a bit better than the Mint director on that.
• That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(about the paragraph stuff) I definitely agree with short paragraphs, but I don't think that data out of order is a good idea, unless it's on a different subject. For instance, I like this layout if necessary:

This happened first, this happened second, this happened third.
(second paragraph) while that happened, this happened, and this happened.

Before I reordered it chronologically, we had the dies being made before the design was chosen. While it's obvious to us that's not possible, others may find it confusing.-RHM22 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(other stuff)The reason the Mint gave for elimination mintmarks in '60s was because of coin collectors, but it actually probably due to people hoarding silver. After all, there may have been a few million collectors back then, but most would only want one of each mintmark. I used to have an magazine that outlined this, but it's packed up somewhere now. I'll look into the other points and see what I can find in my personal magazine archives.-RHM22 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, we'll leave the order alone. Eva Adams had this "thing" about coin collectors ... yes, I agree, it wasn't collectors with wheelbarrows full of silver dollars.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not trying to commandeer anything, so if you think it looks better the other way, it's probably fine. I'm not really happy with the way it looks now anyway. Also, do you have a 2011 Red Book? Mine is 2010 and I don't have the mintage numbers for the 2009 or 2010 proof Sacagawea dollars.-RHM22 (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Tell me what you think, always. "Deferring" to me is silly and unwarranted. 2010, sorry. I only buy one every few years, it is mostly for reference to such things as mintages and whatnot, easy enough to get coin values online.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be split into two subheadings "inception" and "design creation". The former would have the origin and the authorizing legislation while the latter would have all the information about design selection. Though it's not chronological, it is easier to navigate and less cumbersome. As for the Red Book, I usually only buy them once every couple of years also. 2010 was actually made in 2009, which is when I got it. I hardly ever use it for values.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's hold off a bit and see how it wears on us. I think it's coming along.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) Ouch. Typos! That will show me to edit late at night! Anyhow, I'm starting to run out of NY Times material so will step back and let you take a shot at things for a bit. The story of the bicentennial coins should be good for a paragraph, after that I guess we just cover the decline and fall of the half dollar. I would keep and expand a bit the varieties section, perhaps that is a good place to put the collector's variations. I'm not sure there is much more to cover beyond that. With luck we should have a completed article to work over in a few days. It's turning into an interesting story. I admit to not being aware of some of the twists and turns. I suggest we leave the specifications section (sourced, of course) and put a note in the infobox saying (for silver variations, see Specifications section).

I think specs would be a good idea, but I'm going to try and integrate them into the article instead of making a whole section with a laundry list of information. The article is looking great so far! There's more information there than I ever could have dreamed could be found for the Kennedy half. In fact, I might be inclined to believe that it will be the most comprehensive source of information for this design available (on the internet leastways I'd say).-RHM22 (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it will be fine. I am always pleased when a wiki article becomes the leading source of information. Like we said to Laser Brain, the Kennedy is just not studied. I may have spoken ill of those numismatics columns, but it is a good thing they are out there. By the way, if I don't respond to a proposal you make, it means I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about replacing "silverless" with "base metal" or "copper–nickel clad"?-RHM22 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I was just trying to think of anything. How about "Clad coinage (1971–present)"

I'm not sure about that, because the 40%ers were technically clad also.-RHM22 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

True. I guess given the choices "Base metal" sounds better, and it is a logical chopping off point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Tomaska says "about 100,000" were the Type I, or accented hair. It mentions the Jackie, as a story. I think it harmless to present it as such.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added those things. I also changed the header to remove "varieties", since I don't really notice any notable varieties other than those which are already mentioned in other sections. I can always add it back if you think we should add some other stuff. I think the article looks really good. I would say that it's ready after a few minor fixes.-RHM22 (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I've made some copyedits and will continue to do so, and have nommed it for PR here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Good! I'll watchlist the nom.-RHM22 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured lists on the main page (perhaps!)

Hi there. There's a discussion here about the possibility of getting featured lists their own section on the main page. The discussion has turned to presenting a few lists that would represent the quality and diversity of topics that we cover, and a list that you were involved with has been mentioned specifically. It'd be great to get your thoughts. Regards, The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Does this look like a reliable source to you? Someone made an addition ot Buffalo nickel and cited to this and I'm trying to decide whether to delete it or just clean it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What the person added about the coin seems to be true enough, but I don't have any reason to believe that the website is a reliable source. It looks like just a private hobbyist made it. I'll do a check later and see if I can find that information on a more reliable website.-RHM22 (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

this is the best I could come up with. It doesn't have as much detail as was added to article, but it mentions the overdate and says that it wasn't well known until many years after production.-RHM22 (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good article, and I'll work from that and just discuss the overdates generally. 360K is a lot for an overdate! There were others which showed up later. Thanks for the advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. That's what I was thinking! Someone really likes their overdates.-RHM22 (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will leave it as is until next week, and when I am home I will use Bowers and the article you gave and fix it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RHM22. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: The Firefly

It looks awesome. I'll just tweak the caption slightly. I was debating what image to use, and couldn't find one I really liked. Yours works great though. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 21:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

K Thanks. If you feel like it, pretty much most of the Fringe articles need screenshots. You could maybe try focusing on the articles most developed, as they are the closest to being submitted for GA. I just need to find a little more info and finish them up. Possible articles include The Arrival (Fringe), In Which We Meet Mr. Jones, Unleashed (Fringe), August (Fringe), Over There (Fringe), Do Shapeshifters Dream of Electric Sheep?. and Entrada (Fringe). P.S. What do you think of the image in There's More Than One of Everything? It's a GA nom, but I don't know if the image works that well. Thoughts? Thanks for your help, Ruby2010 talk 21:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great. I'm sure you'll find something better. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 02:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)