Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people on United States banknotes/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of people on United States banknotes

[edit]

List of people on United States banknotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...While some individual lists/articles discuss the history or background of a specific individual depicted on U.S. banknotes, a comprehensive summary and/or list covering the issue of federal notes (1861 to the present) does not appear to exist on Wikipedia. This was the impetus to create the list, my first entry for Wikipedia. All images in this list are cropped from scans made by me at the Smithsonian Institution. Also, I think it meets FLC... Godot13 (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 11:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment I would not support the list so quick; I wonder if Cirt have carefully checked the article. Anyway, I see information not supported by the references. Let us take Adams, the source does not exhamine that he was a Democractic-Republican and Unitarian. Also colours may not meet WP:COLOR; check with the tool [2] whether they are ok or not. 013567 for example is not even compliant with WCAG 2 AA. States should be linked and written out.--Tomcat (7) 12:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the feedback Tomcat7. I have spelled out all the state names and linked the first reference to the state in each box of the list with the appropriate wikilink. I have also gone through the citations for political and religious affiliation. If they are not covered by the reference immediately following the name I have either added an additional citation following the political party/religious affiliation, or in a few cases have removed it. Some of the information for these two categories comes from Wikipedia articles which, on further investigation, do not cite the source of their information. In these cases information has been removed. I will research the issue regarding colors and make appropriate changes. Am I correct in thinking that I should choose more standardized colors that meet the WP compliance issues? Thanks - Godot13 (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the colors should at least meet AA requirements. The current ones are too dark anyway. If you experiment with the sliders, you will quickly find better colors. For example you can replace D49129 with 877700. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reading WCAG 2 criteria I realized that using colors to visually link to nine different categories may simply further confuse the issue, even for those without any form of visual difficulty. I have removed the colors entirely.- Godot13 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 does not indicate a page number. Is the source only one page?
  • I don't see any publishers in the citations. Make sure you add them.
  • Words like "Reverse" and "1928–Present" are to be written in lowercase.
  • Boldface should not be used for emphasis, if anything than italicface. See also WP:BADEMPHASIS.--Tomcat (7) 21:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 is 304 pages, the cited information is not contained on a single page but rather throughout the book (e.g., manually counting the number of individuals, and reference to the ordering of banknote types).
  • Question- When you refer to publishers in the citations, are you referring to the embedded citations/syntax (versus the visible reference section which is tied into the Books references)?
  • I mean the missing publishers in the citation templates which appear in the reference section, eg the publisher for Ref 3 would be "U.S. Department of the Treasury"--Tomcat (7) 11:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Reverse” and “Present” changed to lowercase.
  • The bolded titles in the Title/comments section have been changed to italics and in the banknote column changed to plain text. The individual names in the Name column remain in bold. Thanks- Godot13 (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments As a numismatist I really enjoyed this list, but there are several problems I have with it. In the lead, it's not WP's job to tell me what is surprising or familiar, so those sentences should be removed. In the table, there is too much information in the name column, which seems cluttered. Since this is about appearances on currency, I believe political party and religion are inappropriate to include. The places of birth and death are superfluous, with the date or just year being suffient. Is there a reason why some positions held are italicized? If you're trying to draw attention to them (and why those in particular?), honestly I would much prefer only listing the important positions the people are known for and eliminate the clutter. For example, James Monroe's box is very long, listing his time in the state house twice, governor twice, and the undescriptive "American Revolutionary War". His dates for Secretary of War are also wrong. Also listed are honors like Thanks of Congress and Congressional Gold Medal which have little to do with their stature. Stick to the stuff that made them worthy of being on a banknote, not state legislature, militia membership, or 'Commissioner of Mexican Claims'. Additionally, we know everything is American, so the "United States" in front of every position is repetitive.
Furthmore, sorry, but the content of the notes is ridiculous. Why does it matter that "Czolgosz was a socially inept, highly detached, and introverted person" to McKinley's appearance on a banknote? Or that he enlisted in the Army as a private? That Philip Sheridan was suspended from West Point and the 1800 election was a tie? Please carefully go through the article and only keep what is important to the article's topic of United States banknotes. The rest is what Wikilinks are for. This is a very well-developed article, but too developed. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 20:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Thanks for the detailed review. I too am a numismatist. However, I was not assembling this list as a purely numismatic endeavor. The goal of this list is not only to present who has been depicted on banknotes of the specified period, but to also look at their relevance and major contributions in history. Information like political and religious affiliation may be of interest and contain educational value when looking at the subset of historical figures.
  • The italicized titles (as described in the intro) indicate positions that are a part of the chain of succession to the presidency. They are emphasized to denote the most senior elected office attained by any given individual (provided it was within the chain of succession).
  • Words like “surprising” or “familiar” have been removed.
  • Some of Monroe’s data could be better condensed (e.g., listing a position only once and putting all applicable dates behind it - done).
  • Dates for Secretary of War have been fixed. The source was incorrect. Further digging also demonstrated that the WP article on Monroe also may have incorrectly cited the dates from the indicated source. New citation added.
  • I respectfully disagree with your assessment that some of the note content is “ridiculous.” As I mentioned before, the goal of this FLC is multidimensional: to provide a very brief professional history of the individuals depicted on banknotes, and to provide some related contextual history; to bring these people to life. Listing all their achievements highlights why many of these people were in fact chosen to be on U.S. banknotes. The list is not primarily about banknotes, but that is the common denominator. Thank you. - Godot13 (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure religious affiliation or place of birth has to do with major contributions in history. The line of succession that includes cabinet members was not created until 1886, so that is largely irrelevant to this article, with most people serving before then. Besides, it is not necessarily the most important position held. Clay was better known as a Congressman, not SecState, and Marshall's time as chief justice was much more important than as SecState. Winfield Scott was never SecWar (according to our article), nor would two months of it be more important than being General. Again, that "Booth was a chronically frustrated outcast, who sought acceptance, attention, and recognition from others", that the 1888 election was split, that McCulloch was a local bank director, and that "Guiteau had psychopathic traits" has absolutely nothing to do with banknotes, these people's inclusion on them, or even their contextual history, and the same goes for their religions. If I wanted minute details about births, deaths, and assassins' mental states, I would go to the relevant article, but this one is about banknotes. If McKinley enlisted as a private, what about McPherson and Meade right below him? Sheridan was suspended from West Point, but how did W.T. Sherman do while there? The notes just seem random and include little factoids rather than meaningful, relevant content. I respectfully <st>Oppose. Also, per WP:FLAGBIO, the flags should be removed. Reywas92Talk 07:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the feedback. The flags have been removed.
      • If this list was intended to focus solely on the banknotes themselves, the notes would be the centerpiece, versus the clipped portraits of those depicted. The goals for this list are stated above, so I won’t rehash them again.
      • The footnote for Clay acknowledges that the line of succession was different at the time he (and others) served in office. I am not suggesting that attaining a position that falls within the line of succession for the Presidency is necessarily more important than another, or that a given individual may not have made significant historical impact in a position outside of this line. I am merely pointing it out as an educational tool about which positions fall within the line and which do not.
      • I’m not sure which article you are referring to about Winfield Scott, but references to his serving as interim Secretary of War can be found here [3][4][5]
      • McPherson and Meade both attended West Point and were career officers. McKinley may have been the only President on U.S. currency to have served as a private in the Armed Forces (i.e., started as a grunt). The information for each West Point graduate (rank in their graduating class) is available, but frankly that didn’t seem quite as interesting as what is included.
      • The additional details are in the notes section so they do not interfere with the flow of the list but the (at least personally speaking) interesting additional facts are available to those who would avail themselves of it.
      • This is my first work on WP, and I admit I do not have great experience with the process. If others concur with your feedback regarding an excessive number of irrelevant details then I will be happy revise. Thanks again for the feedback - Godot13 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: – The following have been removed or hidden from view in response to comments from Reywas92:
  • References to participation in specific wars have been removed from all title/comment sections except for those individuals depicted in military uniform (i.e., career military). Due to his service as a Commanding General of the U.S. Army, Grant is included in this group.
  • References/notes relating to the psychological autopsies of Presidential assassins or attempted assassins.
  • Religious affiliation. Godot13 (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: - The following changes have been made in response to comments from Reywas92:
  • Reference to positions within the line of presidential succession have been de-emphasized (returned to plain text) and related notes removed.
  • Reference to line of succession in the intro has been removed.
  • Dates of birth and death have been moved into their own sortable columns.
  • Places of birth and death have been removed.-Godot13 (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, "United States" has been abbreviated as "U.S." (in the body of the list only) due to its frequent use. This is only for Cabinet positions and the House and Senate. For the latter two, some distinction is necessary between State and Federal legislature. President and Vice President, and some of the low frequency titles (e.g., Treasurer of the United States) have not been abbreviated. - Godot13 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, removal of several citations/notes suggested to be irrelevant to the list. -Godot13 (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reviewing the comments above, I believe I have addressed almost all of your concerns. Below may be a few stragglers:
  • "prefer only listing the important positions the people are known for and eliminate the clutter." —Except for career military, all references to wars have been removed. Eliminating all but the most important positions reduces the reader’s ability to see how outstanding, versatile, and accomplished these 53 people are in the context of history (i.e., why all statesmen are not created equally).
  • "Also listed are honors like Thanks of Congress and Congressional Gold Medal which have little to do with their stature." -- These two honors (and the descriptive notes that go with them) give insight into why those Generals depicted on U.S. Banknotes were in fact selected. Respectfully, -- Godot13 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Post-promotion comment: I am happy with the intro now, and I love the new sorting feature. Congrats! Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Astros4477
Comments –

I'm not very familiar with this topic so I'm going to review mostly on formatting.

  • I was surprised to see the date formats. I thought that because it was relating directly to the United States, "Month-Day-Year" would be used... Based on this section of the MOS, because they are being used in a table and/or list, dates have been displayed in the present format.
  • In "Summary of titles/positions", "# People" should be "No. People". Fixed
  • You need to add "plainrowheaders" per MOS:DTT. Use of Plainrowheaders does not allow for the columns to be individually sorted, and is optional (not required) according to MOS:DTT.
  • IMO, the major issue is that the main table is too crowded. I think the name of the person should be in its own column with their political party being in a seperate. Understood. It has been suggested that political party affiliation is not relevant to the list. It has been removed to avoid further clutter.
  • I also feel like there is too much information in the "Title/comments" column, I'm having trouble making sense of it all. I will review and work on this.
  • "The table below summarizes..." shouldn't be used. I don't think your ever supposed to say "This article" or "This table". Fixed

-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Not keen on the second sentence saying "This list..." We don't have articles which say "This article..." in the second sentence of the lead, do we? -- Removed/rephrased
  • I would recommend you consider merging the paragraphs before the list to create a decent lead, one where you won't need to refer to "the list" or "the list below" etc, and focus on the people featured and their positions in US society. -- Done(?) Please advise if I should add more
  • "was given broad" since when? year? -- Added
  • "while he was still living" -> alive. -- Rephrased as during their lifetime. Will change to simply alive if requested.
  • Not sure how useful "average dimensions" of notes are. -- Understood. Moved out of the body to a note with comment that average is +/- 2mm to allow for margins and cutting differences. (Happy to remove it altogether).
  • Check for WP:YEAR ranges, (e.g. you still have the odd "1928–1934" which should be "1928–34"). -- Done
  • The "Portraits" section should be called something like "People portrayed" or something, since it's more than just portraits. -- Done, changed to People depicted
  • "List of people on United States Bank Notes" should be "List of people on United States banknotes" for consistency. -- Done
  • Total years of service is probably a violation of WP:SYNTH, it's not really relevant and is generated by making estimates on the years in service (e.g. did you round 183 days up to a whole year and 182 down to no years when adding all these together?). Plus you have three blanks, what does that mean? -- Years removed, summary of positions remains. Will remove this if suggested.
  • Note 12 has an odd /> -- Removed
  • No need to SHOUT in the reference titles. -- Voice level has been calmed.
  • Multiple page refs, e.g. ref 93, should have pp. not just p. -- Fixed
  • I'm not sure you need Category:Numismatics when you have two other, more refined numismatic categories in the US banknotes, and people depicted on banknotes categories. -- Agreed, removed

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • The New York Times is a work so should be in italics. Check other works are treated similarly.-- Done. Question: Do citations from electronic encyclopedias require italics?
  • Weak support my support is weak because while I find the notes interesting, they are off-topic. One suggestion: Biographical Directory of the United States Congress footnotes are not consistent with other reference. For example in "Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: Adams, John Quincy, (1767–1848)" the title would be "Adams, John Quincy, (1767–1848)" and the publisher "Biographical Directory of the United States Congress". Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congressional Bio references have been changed per your suggestion. I understand the concern that you (and others) have expressed over some of the notes in the list. I have tried to reduce their scope. Many (but not all) of the notes contain information or details which are not found in the linked Wikipedia articles. Thank you for your support, regardless of the level. --Godot13 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • In the first paragraph, there's too much capitalization. I would decapitalize "Members" twice, "Jurists", and "Military Leaders". -- Done.
  • Second and third paragraphs could use more linking of people and government-related items. -- Done.
  • In general, the lead paragraphs are all stubby and could stand to be combined in some way. Three good-sized paragraphs would be a lot better than six tiny ones. -- Done. Please let me know if more transitional material is necessary.
  • In the caption on top of the key, the last three words should be decapitalized.-- Done.
  • "and the founders and framers of our government." As the English Wikipedia, British, Australian, and Indian citizens may be reading this, among others, so to say the U.S. government is "ours" is inappropriate.-- Understood, reworded.
  • In the table: "People" should be decapitalized. -- Done.
  • Note 2: Remove space before the period.-- Done.
  • Note 6 could use a period at the end.-- Done Giants2008 (Talk) 21:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of titles/positions: Since we use "banknotes" earlier, that's what this should say instead of the overcapitalized "Bank Notes".-- Done

The review below has been copied from the FLC Talk page. The original can be seen there, with an intact log entry for each comment. It has been moved here for continuity. Only the opening word "Comments" has been added, the rest is verbatim. If such a move/copy is inappropriate, please let me know.--Godot13 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments An FLC of the nature of this article is needed and I would be happy to support if a few changes were made ...

1) a lot of people ask questions about the worthiness of various individuals to appear on modern federal reserve notes ... the individuals were selected in the 1920's as images that would be considered distinctively "American" and give hand-to-hand currency users the confidence that this was the currency of the United States. Hunt down the relevant source for the info, and make the comment (just my solicited advice, value it for what you pay!) 2) Next, if you look on the back of the series 1976 two dollar bill, you will find scads of famous americans that you don't list here - please explain why not! And if you say it is because you don't refer to the reverse, then take Morse off the list! 3) the $5k and $10k united states notes certificates of deposits are omitted here, why? they were only banking pieces but, then again, so was the $100k gold certificate, how are the choices being made? 4) why start in 1861? President Buchanan appeared on the 1860 $1000 treasury note - why omit that? You include the 1861 2-year treasury note ...

Overall, an excellent article which is most def needed, but you gotta be clear about the rationale for what you include and exclude .... Happy to engage more if any of this is helpful ... --LondonYoung (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to look over the FLC.
1) I agree, many people do wonder how the current group of people depicted on U.S. banknote was selected. What you suggest makes sense as a significant criteria for selection, which I would be happy to add, as soon as I can find at least one appropriate reference for such a statement. I am looking.
2) The 53 people included in the list each had their own individual portrait engraved and placed on U.S. Banknotes. This includes those individually depicted on the reverse of the notes (e.g., Morse, Fulton, etc.). The Trumbull painting engraved for the reverse of the Series 1976 $2 bill contains a laundry list of historically significant figures in American history. However, only Franklin, Jefferson, and Morris were individually featured on other bills. I did not list each founder depicted in the Trumbull painting because it is a group depiction.
3) The Series 1875 $5,000 and $10,000 Certificates of Deposit were more like checks (or receipts) than negotiable currency or banknotes. This was also true for the early (1862-1863) high denomination gold certificates, but by 1870-1875 they were redesigned to resemble negotiable currency. While the $100,000 gold certificate was not a negotiable instrument for the general public (along with the other high denomination 1934 gold certificates), the $100,000 note is designed in exactly the same style as its lower denomination counterparts. Also, while there are some flaws in every major reference book if you look hard enough, the central reference text for United States Banknotes (for collectors, not necessarily researchers) is Friedberg, who does not assign a catalog number to Certificates of Deposit.
4) I chose to start in 1861 because was the year of issue for the Demand Notes (greenbacks) and it was the time that Congress began to overhaul the system of currency. I also needed to select a cutoff date to limit the scope of this particular list.
The first line of the list/article states that the inclusion criteria are United States banknotes from 1861 to the present. This seemed like a fairly complete and manageable task. I do hope to create at least one or two more similar lists, possibly for Confederate Currency, and maybe for U.S. Bonds.
Again, thank you for your time and input. I am looking for support in the literature for the first point you raised. -- Godot13 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first point raised: [Quote from the BEP website]It was determined that portraits of Presidents of the United States have a more permanent familiarity in the minds of the public than any others. This decision was somewhat altered by the Secretary of the Treasury to include Alexander Hamilton, who was the first Secretary of the Treasury; Salmon P. Chase, who was Secretary of the Treasury during the Civil War and is credited with promoting our National Banking System; and Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence...Treasury Department records do not reveal the reason that portraits of these particular statesmen were chosen in preference to those of other persons of equal importance and prominence.[[6]]--Godot13 (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More of me blathering on ... I think you need to change the opening sentence to refer to "individual portraits" as per your answer above ... this will deal with Trumbull's painting (and the like), and it will also deal with the image of Columbus, who appears individually, on the $1000 Legal Tender because "portrait" often implies an emphasis on the face ... I also think you have to mention that you are relying on Friedberg - at least in a footnote - because, if nothing else, Sherman never appeared on a U.S. banknote though he probably would have appeared on the never-issued $500 coin note to which Friedberg none-the-less assigned number 379 ... these two changes, and I will be happy to support
I will say nothing of the fact that the reverse of large size NBN's contained ovals at each side of the reverse which some states used for portraits of favorite sons ... we can only go so far! --LondonYoung (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and, to be clear, I would like the article to say that it relies on Friedberg for the definition of what counts as a U.S. Banknote ... this is a list, and what is on, or off, this list seems to have been determined by Friedberg (which is fine, but you need to say that)--LondonYoung (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your suggested clarification has been added to the first sentence of the list. There is already a footnote by the W.T. Sherman entry (in the far right column) indicating that he was depicted on the $500 Treasury Note which was designed, printed, but never issued. I am curious as to your reference to the reverse of NBN's. Only the Series 1882 Date Back and Value Back has an individual portrait on the reverse (William Fessenden)... unless you are referring to the individual content of the State Seals on the reverse of the 1882 Brown Backs.

Do you have any objection if I copy our discussion onto the FLC nomination page where other such discussions have taken place? Thanks again for your time and insightful comments.--Godot13 (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. School-children are often asked to put together reports on famous Americans and those who have appeared on our currency are an important group of such. I think a list like this is important and should be featured since it will become one of the more referenced pages in the wikipedia. Featuring it not only helps people to find it, but also draws attention that will keep the content top-notch and accurate. Which of us (sorry non-Americans :-( ) has not looked upon the currency and wondered about the people appearing on it and why they were selected? --LondonYoung (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.Well done. I recently acquired a Gold Cert pre 34, and it was a joy to read this listing. I do collect exonumia and some odd paper from the US.Coal town guy (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to TRM's request I revisit my comments, I am still opposed to the MOS-violating material in the notes section. Notes in an article are to provide further clarification for material listed in the text (like note 3), to give details about citiations (like note 1 and 2), or to give important details relevant to context (like notes 4 and 5), not simply miscellanea. There is no pertinance of Cleveland's nonconsecutive terms, Farragut's quotation, Stanton's suspension, or quotes of Thanks of Congress to appearances on currency. I consider this to be a WP:TRIVIA section, which goes against the manual of style. I am also disappointed that the incredibly irrelevant material of assassins' mental states was simply commented out, not actually removed. Reywas92Talk 20:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understanding how some of this material can come off as potentially trivial in the context of who/why these people appear on currency, and after reviewing WP:TRIVIA,
  • 1) Cleveland's nonconsecutive terms, 2) Farragut's quotation, and 3) Stanton's suspension have been Removed/Commented out, and 4) Assassins’ mental states has been Erased/Deleted.
  • Thanks of Congress remain. The quotes do serve to “give important details relevant to context” in that many readers are likely to be unfamiliar with the term Thanks of Congress, or the specific nature of the content. The information provided is also historically pertinent, in part, to their selection to appear on U.S. banknotes. I do not think this is trivia (per WP:TRIVIA). Thank you for revisiting your comments. I hope you will find these changes satisfactory.--Godot13 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't seem to understand. The ones I mentioned are just examples I pointed out, but none of these are relevant. Yes, that "Decatur was fatally wounded in a duel by court-martialed former Naval Commodore James Barron on 22 March 1820", that "Hamilton began publishing the “Federalist” series on 27 October 1787", that "In 1794, Madison declined both U.S. Minister to France and Secretary of State posts offered by President Washington", and the other notes ARE WP:TRIVIA in the context of an article about appearances on currency. If they were relevant, they would go in the table or body of the article, but they are not. If you have sources actually describing the selection process, that would be great, but this is fluff (Manning surely wasn't honored for editing the Albany Atlas, and Jefferson wasn't chosen because his election was a tie). I doubt that when Congress or Treasury decided to put a person on a banknote decades later, they made that decision based on the flowery text of the TOC (not simply the same reason it was given). If readers don't know what a TOC is, that's what WP:WIKILINKs are for. The quotes are not "relevant to context" when context is appearance on banknotes, unless you can show the quotes or TOC itself were taken into consideration when put on the bills. Reywas92Talk 22:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct. I did not understand. Thank you for explaining it to me. The list has been edited to your exact specifications. If I missed anything please let me know.--Godot13 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Reywas92Talk 01:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_people_on_United_States_banknotes/archive1&oldid=1138487200"