Talk:Royal Canadian Mint numismatic coins (1900–1999)

Untitled

For some reasons, numismatic one cents were removed from this page. The numismatic one cents may be a small group but are important. The goal of this article is to be the one stop resource for RCM Numismatic coins. Please keep this on the page. Maple Leaf 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Big coin

I heard on the radio about a huge, multi-kilogram gold coin being struck by the RCM. Anyword on it? -Will Beback · † · 04:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a coin with a face value of one million dollars. Details are under the article Gold Maple Leaf. Maple Leaf 14:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

New Article

As this article was so huge, I split this article into two articles. This article now features coins only from the 20th Century while the new article features all coins from the 2000's. Please refer to Royal Canadian Mint Numismatic Coins (2000's) for anything in the 21st Century. Maple Leaf 14:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

B Class Rating

Like its sister Royal Canadian Mint Numismatic Coins (2000's) this article is probably too immature to qualify for B class rating on the quality scale. While better developed than the sister article, I think it still does not meet the 6 B-Class Criteria [1]. Likewise, I will place a request for assessment [2]. Please don't take this as a criticism of the quality or quantity of work that has gone into these pages to date! --Whoosit (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Discovering Nature Series

There's an apparent error here. It says that the issue prices listed are for "two-coin set", but none of these were issued in two-coin sets, but in four coin sets. Furthermore, at least in the case of the 1999 Cata of Canada releases, they were issued in a) a four-coin box set, b) individually mounted in plastic coin holders on shrinkwrapped display cards, and c) individually as loose coins, all at different prices. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Undiscussed split

Hi Knowledgekid87,

Regarding this edit, not that I necessarily disagree, but when making such a big change, you should give it a week or two (so others can weigh in). You only put up the split banner earlier today. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: I thought about it, but I don't think there are enough editors monitoring these pages. I looked up the creator and they haven't edited Wikipedia for 4 months. The information as presented is also factually incorrect as Bullion coins are not the same as commemoratives. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It would just be a common courtesy.

You should indicate in your edit summaries WHERE you are moving this content. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Joey, a majority of this stuff is unsourced (WP:V) and hasn't been touched in like 3 years. The data might still be good if it can be verified and put back into an article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That's nothing to do with what I said. I said you should indicate where you are splitting content to. You have indicated on several occasions you are moving content without saying WHERE you are moving it to. Start providing proper summaries or you will be reverted. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

And another undiscussed split

So Knowledgekid87,

How does this content justify its own separate article? In particular, a quarter is NOT a Canadian commemorative coin: it's a circulating coin of which there have been commemorative issues, so the basic premise of your split is flawed.

Maybe ease up on the major edits and discuss some of this stuff before making sweeping changes? —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Reasons for split

• The commemorative quarters of Canada are a big deal as the first series directly influenced the 50 State quarters program. [3], [4].
• The Royal Canadian mint lit. has a circulating commemorative program. [5] There are also things like Coin Week discussing non-circulating commemorative coins: [6], [7].
• There is also WP:SIZE and WP:SCOPE to think about. How much material do you want devoted to x topic? If too much attention is focused on modern commemorative coins then we have a WP:RECENTISM issue.

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry... what WP:SIZE issue?

• Prose size (including all HTML code): 8737 B
• References (including all HTML code): 6381 B
• Wiki text: 28 kB
• Prose size (text only): 7231 B (1218 words) "readable prose size"

That's the page size info from before you split off content to Quarter (Canadian commemorative coin). Per WP:SPLIT, there's nowhere near enough content to have warranted this change.

There's no scope issue... including commemorative quarters is an article called "Royal Canadian Mint numismatic coins (1900–1999)" seems like a perfect match.

What other publications or fan websites do or don't do is irrelevant to what we do here at Wikipedia, where we have our own conventions.

And let's not pretend you're just planning to split off the quarters... you are clearly planning to split off other commemorative coins, I expect with—again—zero discussion as if you are the owner of this topic somehow. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: How is "Royal Canadian Mint numismatic coins (1900–1999)" a "perfect match"? The scope of "numismatic coins" is broad and open to interpterion. Rather than having an article of tables, there should be sourced prose explaining them. There is also WP:POTENTIAL for the Quarter articles which both could use a history section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)