View text source at Wikipedia

Template talk:Coinage (United States)

Template:Coinage (United States)

[edit]

Could someone look at the edits that Salem Leo has made to Template:Coinage (United States) in these edits. It appears that many items such as 1804 dollar have been removed from the template and remain curiously included on the pages for various subjects without regard to the most recent edits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted. While his changes are not without sense, such a dramatic change really needs to be discussed. And I don't agree with a number of things, like an 1868 large cent. And I agree with what you say. One idea would be to put the individual issues like the 1804 dollar into a different group.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US regular coinage includes 1/2 cents, 2 cents, 3 cent silver pieces, 3 cent nickels, and the 20 cent piece. They were regular issues of the mint and should be included in the template list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.129.236 (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early (1892–1954)

[edit]

Should the "Early (1892–1954)" section be further divided into "Dollar" and "Half dollar" sections? This way we could remove the repeated appearances of "dollar" and "half dollar"? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Curious if you have a preference. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given how few dollars there are, maybe to break up chronologically? 1892-1903, 1918-1928, 1934-1954?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Well, I was actually thinking to keep grouped by denomination and this would allow removal of all the "dollar" and "half dollar" (entries would just be "Connecticut Tercentenary (1935)", "California Pacific International Exposition (1935–36)", "Rhode Island Tercentenary (1936)", etc). I was considering ways to further organizer and hopefully even reduce the overall size of the template, but if this does not seem intuitive, that's ok. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense. I'm fine with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds good. I'll see if I can figure out how to further subdivide the commemoratives. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: How does this look? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse commemoratives?

[edit]

This template is getting big. I'm not very familiar with collapsible (or rather, partially collapsible) navboxes, but how do editors feel about collapsing the "Commemoratives" section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, and a nice find. One possible way may be the one used on the {{Frankenstein}} template to section off the films, with a descriptor of how to view the section. (edit: just suggested the same thing at the {{Dracula}} template). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt and ZLEA: Curious what you two think about collapsing the commemoratives section within this large template? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer I think this is a great idea, especially because I plan on creating articles for most of the modern commemoratives once I rework the list article. - ZLEA T\C 19:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of saving space where we can.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt and ZLEA: Glad we're all in agreement! The problem is I don't know how to collapse the content, lol. Do either of you care to take a stab or know where to ask for help? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer Does this work? - ZLEA T\C 20:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not technical in that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ZLEA, I think the default for the template as a whole should be uncollapsed. What does User:Wehwalt think? Also, I wonder if the commemoratives should be moved so the middle of the template isn't collapsed, or if the current order of sections should be kept? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed that some of the years have been truncated although years should be full if not consecutive. (Edit:I see that the Frankenstein template has been changed so "Films" is no longer collapsed, went back in its history linked what I'm talking about). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Barack Obama has an interesting way of collapsing content at the bottom. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of hidden down there and looks like a portion of "below" if the reader doesn't know better. If 'Commemoratives' is collapsed (I personally don't mind large templates, although if this is to be uncollapsed on all pages then maybe it should be a bit smaller) it might be best to keep it where it is so readers can find it easier. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, I'll totally yield to what other editors think is best, but glad there's general agreement to do some organizing/collapsing in some way. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer I've made the changes, and I've also expanded the list of modern commemoratives. - ZLEA T\C 23:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ZLEA, Wonderful, thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, and probably interesting coding. It knocked out the 'autocollapse' of the template (probably reading it out as another template), but I have no idea of what's under the coding engine. In expanded mode it's looking very good. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the blue links in the modern section redirect to the same page, also linked in the section head. Probably should all be red-linked to provide the full red link selection for interested authors (and kept for full coverage of the topic). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I had no idea what I was doing when I started the task, and as you can see at [1], it took much trial and error. - ZLEA T\C 11:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tremendous work, thanks for doing it. Put me in that room and I would have come out a week later hungry, dehydrated, and covered in random unintelligible coding. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

[edit]

Wehwalt, Another Believer, Randy Kryn, I propose that the circulating coins be split from this template. I've made the new circulating coinage navbox in my sandbox here, and the shortened version of this navbox here. Let me know what you think. - ZLEA T\C 19:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine now, but I like entire topics in one template, which are then easily presented on all of the articles. Splitting means many articles will only have somebutnotall of the available map. Not married to the concept enough to argue for it here, especially after the yeoman's work you've all put into the templates, but present it in case you haven't thought of it (kind of like the two Star Wars templates which now, after a split, only present half of the topics on almost all of the articles). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed this split because the template is currently a mess. For example, under the "gold" section, only specific coin designs like Turban Head eagle and Saint-Gaudens double eagle are listed, while all the gold denominations are listed under "obsolete or cancelled".
I considered fixing the navbox by removing the "gold" section entirely, but I realized that, other than the designs listed under that section, the only coin designs listed are of currently produced denominations. Therefore I believe the best way to fix this problem is to split off the circulation coins. - ZLEA T\C 23:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]