Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics

Significant changes to characteristics of a coin

Template:Infobox coin handles coins with multiple different obverses and reverses by providing |Obverse=|Obverse2=|Obverse3= etc. But what should we do if the coin has a significant design change that is not merely the replacement of one obverse or reverse by another?

I'm thinking mainly about these:

• Penny (British decimal coin) and Two pence (British decimal coin), which changed from bronze to copper-plated steel in 1992
• Five pence (British coin), Ten pence (British coin) and Fifty pence (British coin), all of which underwent reductions in both diameter and thickness, and hence mass, in 1990, 1992–93 and 1997–98 respectively
• One pound coin, which changed its shape from round to dodecagonal in 2017 and also changed from being a single metal to bimetallic at the same time

The infobox has only one parameter for shape, mass, diameter, composition and some other key features, so what is the best way of handling changes such as those I've described above? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

What I'd do is include the respective composition, diameter, thickness, etc. for the coin with a date range for when it had that respective trait in the parameter. I'd say a good example for composition and mass change is Indian Head cent, which had its composition changed in 1864. But we don't really have a style guide for numismatic articles, so write it in whatever way seems the most clear. Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 03:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not asking about article prose, but what to do with the infobox parameters. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Eman7blue. We're not going to get utter consistency. For example, the predecimal "silver" coins changed composition in 1920 and 1947, and there is no need to break off the articles on them then. We do the best we can to be useful to the reader. Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

And if the infobox parameters are inadequate, change them. The fields we have now were not handed down on stone tablets. Change them. Carefully.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting splitting the articles; I'm asking what to do with the infobox parameters. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The reason we have multiple obverse/reverse parameters is because they are presented via a more complex structure (a combination of images and data) than the rest of the infobox. Such a complex structure is not necessary to present most of the other data, so things like changing composition can be easily presented with date ranges and line breaks. Per the KISS principle, it is not usually a good idea to add unnecessary complexity to templates. - ZLEA ^TǀC 17:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer proper lists - linebreaks would be against MOS:NOBR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That's exactly what Template:Plainlist is for. - ZLEA ^TǀC 19:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pond (currency)

The article Pond (currency) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced disambiguation page with only 2 entries.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 September 18#Category:People who have appeared on United States coins deletion request

This WikiProject should have been notified of this deletion request for both coins and paper money some time ago, which may be of interest to WikiProject members. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wayne G. Sayles

The article Wayne G. Sayles has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

only source is his own website

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bearian (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins

I have recently started a rework of Quarter eagle and have been occasionally citing Walter Breen's encyclopedia as a source, as many articles about US coins do. I also recently acquired a book by Q. David Bowers (A Guide Book of Quarter Eagle Gold Coins, published in 2021) to use for the article. In the book, after debunking some info from Breen about the mintage figures of the 1796 quarter eagles, Bowers had this to say: "The same guesswork—better, estimation—is found throughout Walter Breen's texts and has been adapted without question into many popular references including A Guide Book of United States Coins." Bowers mentions Breen guessing mintage figures a couple times in the book. Bowers still cites Breen throughout the book, though half the time he puts little faith in his judgement, even calling his work "discredited" at times. Can Breen's encyclopedia still be considered a reliable source? Since Breen is known for being wrong on occasion, and despite his work is cited on several featured articles, I have a gut feeling that we should avoid Breen when possible as a source (aside from the horrible awful things he did). Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 23:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I believe Breen is considered reliable for his numismatic work, though even reliable authors make mistakes. However, if enough of his work has been called into question by other experts in the field, then it might be worth bringing it to WP:RSN. - ZLEA ^TǀC 00:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Breen made numismatic mistakes but in general is reliable. Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with these books but from your description it seems Breen should not be cited for mintage figures but may be reliable on other topics? I'd guess this page would have better-informed analysis than RSN though since his works are on a single field. — Reywas92^Talk 01:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Breen's work with Anthony Swiatek on commemorative coins is reliable enough. I would agree that RSN is not going to be able to help here. Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It mostly comes across that his work is out of date now. Going forward, I think it would be good to cite more up-to-date sources over Breen. Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 04:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)