Jump to content

Talk:50 State quarters

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crohall (talk | contribs) at 17:37, 8 March 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Footnote formatting

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

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

Caps in article name

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

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

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

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

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

Mintage quantities

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

Hawaii Quarter?

The Hawaii quarter entry says "This is the first and only U.S. coin to feature royalty or a monarch of any kind." Why doesn't the Columbian Exposition quarter dollar count as featuring a royalty or a monarch? It features Queen Isabella of Spain.

The Columbian Exposition quarter was released only as a commemorative coin, and was never circulated. I suppose it the Hawaii quarter is not the first U.S. coin to feature royalty, but it is the first circulated coin that does so. Crohall (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

205.167.170.18 (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV regarding Treasury's viewpoint

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

The tone of the article is more like support in favor of the quarters and program, not necessarily "anti-Treasury". I've rewritten some sentences, but additional copy edits would help. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:50_State_quarters&oldid=542855131"