Talk:Jefferson nickel

Coin related articles do not require people to be shown only on coins (just my 2¢)

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but in this article, and several related coin articles, I think the use of coins as depictions of people (e.g. Nellie Tayloe Ross in this article) is unnecessary and somewhat confusing. Why was this coin picture favoured over an actual image of her?
The image in this case doesn't really add anything to the article, and if a reader is skimming, they are likely to make the fair assumption that images of coins on the Jefferson nickel article will be of or relating to the actual nickel, rather than people involved in judging a related design competition.
To attempt an analogy, in his article it is not needed for portraits of Pablo Picasso to only be shown in a cubist artist's interpretation. Jebus989^✰ 11:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't say you are wrong, and given the choice between a contemporary image and a medal, I'd go with the image. However, the image of Ross is from 16 years before the events of Jefferson nickel, and she is wearing a dress which she no doubt wore for social reasons. The medal is at least roughly contemporaneous to Jefferson nickel (it was made 1933 or after, Sinnock, the designer, was alive until 1947 and Mrs. Ross stayed in office until 1953) and it has to do with her function as director of the Mint. Keep in mind also that Mint medals are guaranteed public domain, since they are always (at least in the last 150 years or so) designed in-house, the Act of 1890 which allows the Mint to hire outside designers for coins says nothing about medals. I'm hampered by the fact as well that 1938 is in the copyright era, so I can't use images like Schlag's original accepted design, or contemporary images of him, or even the images from him from the mid 1960s, when Coin World was campaigning for FS to be put on the nickel.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Several valid points! Thanks for the comprehensive response Jebus989^✰ 13:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jefferson nickel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A (prose):

   "reverse is again the original by Felix Schlag;" - why "again"?

   Please reword: "25-year term during which it could only be replaced by Congress," but you are addressing what happened after the 25 years were up. Sentences need to hang together.

   "Mint looked into reducing its use of it."->"Mint looked into reducing its nickel use."

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   How many were circulated?

   That's a bit of a moving target, since billions are struck every year. I'll see if I can find a total to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article represents significant work by its authors, but a few points need further work. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

All done (though I went a slightly different route on one of them) except the number. What are you looking for? The total number? The number per year?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the total number would be more impressive, but I defer to your judgment. Racepacket (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps recent figures would be more helpful to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On a different point, why did you use the <sub> tags to quote the two phrases on the coin? It strikes me as a bit distracting. Would another tag be more consistent with the MOS? Perhaps you could take another look at it? Racepacket (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's what I've used before for coin legends, do you have another suggestion?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How about <pre> or otherwise using a different font? Racepacket (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Does "appearing above Monticello." mean "appearing above the image of Monticello." or "appearing above the word Monticello."? Racepacket (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The article does not address the long-term impact of the 2003 law. I read it that Monticello must stay on the nickel until Congress acts again, even after another 25 years. Racepacket (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch! I've included that now. I just took the mottos out, How is it now?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I very interesting article. Thank you for your hard work. Congratulations on another good article. Racepacket (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Mintage?

Seems like an article for a type of coin should include mintage by year. Such information would be easy enough to acquire and cite. Just a thought. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That's been done for other denominations, but generally the practice with numismatic FAs is that we spin those out to separate articles and link them from the main one, unless the table is short, as for example, twenty-cent piece. No objection if anyone wants to compile them, you can take them out of the Red Book.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Timing

Wow, how's that for timing! This was the featured article on the very day that the U.S. Nickel was in the news! Samsung pays Apple $1 Billion sending 30 trucks full of 5 cent coins! Well, in the fake news anyhow... No, Samsung did not try to pay Apple its $1bn fine in nickels --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Wehwalt for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

P Mint Mark

May the following text in the article be clarified? It is unclear whether it means that ALL or only SOME of the war-time Philadelphia coins have the P mark. Because the text ends with the phrase "if struck there" it may be interpreted to mean that some war-time years have both marked and unmarked Philadelphia mints for the same minting year. Here is the current text: Philadelphia Mint specimens before 1980 lack mint mark, except for wartime nickels, which have a P for Philadelphia if struck there. Tesseract501 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jefferson nickel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111123140506/https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112- to https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• NickelObverses.jpg
• NickelReverses.jpg
• US Nickel 2013 Obv.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)