Talk:Double florin

Why reference quarter farthing on third farthing page?

The last line in the Third farthing page references the current worth of such coins in terms of inflation, but it references a quarter farthing, rather than a third farthing. Is this a msitake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.4.230.149 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Xoloz (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• Double florin (British coin) → Double florin
• Half farthing (British coin) → Half farthing
• Third farthing (British coin) → Third farthing
• Quarter farthing (British coin) → Quarter farthing
• Half sovereign (British coin) → Half sovereign
• Quarter sovereign (British coin) → Quarter sovereign

– Unnecessary WP:DAB, per policy WP:NC, specifically WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. No naming convention exception from WP:PRECISION apparent here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:UNDAB. —seav (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that WP:UNDAB redirects to Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation, which is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is an essay with no more status that any other editor's views. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am very much aware that this is an essay by B2C. However, the essay lays down a policy-based reasoning in support of the current move request. Rather than repeat this reasoning, I simply linked to the essay. —seav (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Obverse of double florin

• ... that the British coin, the double florin (pictured), was criticised both as too close in size to the crown and because the crown on it was too small? Source: Footnotes 25, 51
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/St. Sylvester, Schwabing

5x expanded by Wehwalt (talk). Self-nominated at 18:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC).

• Recent expansion to over 5x, very well written and referenced. Even though it is a niche topic, the article is eminently readable. AGF on offline sources. Image is appropriate, used in the article, and suitably licensed. QPQ done. I bolded the article and added the '(pictured)' in the hook. Just a couple of remarks on the hook. First, as it stands, without clicking on the links, the reader would be confused. Perhaps add 'coin' after the first 'crown'? Alternatively, may I suggest another, possibly catchier, hook? ALT1: ... that the British coin, the double florin, was called "Barmaid's Ruin" as it was frequently used instead of the similarly sized crown? Constantine ✍ 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to the ALT1, except you might clean it up to (ALT 2) " ... was called the "Barmaid's Ruin", as barmaids were said to have mistaken it for the more valuable crown." I was thinking the original might make a good April Fool's hook.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought that you might be driving at that, but April Fool's generally tries to trick the reader, and here the reader can already infer that you are talking about two different crowns. I admit I cannot think of a way to improve on ALT0 to make it more April Fool's-like, though. On ALT2, fully agreed. Otherwise this is good to go. Constantine ✍ 20:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Suits me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wehwalt and Cplakidas: hi there! Are we sure that coins are automatically available under Crown copyright? The mint seems to have a separate guideline for commercial use of images of coins... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That page, by its terms, applies only to "United Kingdom decimal coins" which this is not. The Commons deletion discussion here discusses the general point.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Better yet, just see c:COM:CUR UK: "The Royal Mint's copyright on coin designs is an instance of Crown Copyright. Sculptures subject to Crown Copyright which were created more than 50 years ago are now in the public domain: use . Images of British coins with designs created more than 50 years ago are permissible provided that the author of the work containing the coins is willing to release his / her copyright to the reuse of the image, which is a separate copyright concern and must also be addressed." The photographer of the coins has released their rights so all is good.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see—fair enough, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph of "Aftermath"

Is the first paragraph of Aftermath really necessary? It details mostly the deaths of people involved in the making of the coin, and reads more like a biographical article than one about a British coin. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Both deaths are the opportunity for quotes from the obituaries that are relevant to the reception of the coin, so I think it's OK as it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Easter egg

We need to improve the opening sentence "The double florin, or four-shilling (4/– or 4s.) piece, was a coin worth ⁠1/5⁠ of one pound sterling,", because [[Coins of the pound sterling|coin]] is a WP:EGG violation (it doesn't go to coin as should reasonably be expected).

Would [[Coins of the pound sterling|British coin]] work? (yielding "The double florin, or four-shilling (4/– or 4s.) piece, was a British coin worth ⁠1/5⁠ of one pound sterling,")? Comments?

BTW, I consider the (4/– or 4s.) in this sentence to be intrusive and redundant. Is there a convincing reason for its presence? To my eye, "The double florin, or four-shilling piece, was a British coin worth ⁠1/5⁠ of one pound sterling," conveys the same information without getting side-tracked into incidental detail, the key criterion for an opening sentence. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the infobox and opening paragraph to that which was present when the article ran TFA about a month ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Might I express my proposal?

In the introduction:

The British double florin or four shilling coin was a denomination of sterling coinage worth ⁠1/5⁠ of one pound or 4 shillings"

For the infobox:

Value = 4/– sterling

This omits all of the compound nouns.

I am extremely sorry that I made errors. All I am trying to do is format the article so that it fits with the coin's historical context. I feel the infobox reference to the value should reference the actual currency the coin is part of, all the other articles on specific coins do instead of merely citing the unit name. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. First of all, I don't think "sterling coinage" is a complete disambiguation to British coinage, as a google search reveals the phrase is used to indicate the pre-decimal coinage of various nations such as South Africa, Australia and Ireland. "4/– sterling}}" is problematical for that reason, and also because of the unusual nature which I've written of before regarding "shilling sterling", even though it is written as a construction with dashes and slashes that few will understand not aged sixty or over. It's better to use terminology the reader will readily understand.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Most definitely we should not use nn/- in articles without a very convincing reason, indeed I'm not sure we should use it anywhere outside the shilling article, full stop. It is a meaningless abbreviation for the huge majority of our readers and to use it anywhere else is at best pedantic and at worst deliberately disruptive.

Yes, the reason I asked for a consensus view rather than just edit the article is that I know that other members of the sterling area used florins, which were not all equal in value to the British florin. But I don't know if that applies to the double florin? During the period of its circulation, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

TCG, please seek consensus for your changes before you make them. You will save yourself and everyone else a lot of grief.

"Pound sterling" is not a compound noun, it is a noun with a post-pended adjective, like "Lords Spiritual and Temporal". (ex Norman French?) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The reason I advocate for using /– is that I believe Wikipedia should be an educational website, and ought to demonstrate the notations that were used. Wikipedia is usually one of the first search results that pops up when people are looking for information about a topic. If a person is reading an older source and sees (for example) "4/–", he is going to want to know what it means. If he looks up the articles on old coins and sees that notation marked after "value" he can easily put two-and-two together and realise "oh, it means shilling!". But if he cannot find it at all he will be flummoxed and still no nearer to finding the answer he was looking for. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the principle but not such an heavy-handed way to achieve it. At most it merits a line in the see also. It does not belong in the lead, less still in the opening sentence. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be OK with a parenthetical somewhere. "4s" is used in one of the quotes in the article, after all.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with taking it out of the lead and putting it only after the "value" tag. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I did not think my edits were controversial. Please accept my apologies. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I think what I was suggesting was put it as a parenthetical in the lead, perhaps altering the parenthetical (four shillings) in the second paragraph. I think the value field is fine as is, or else .2 pounds sterling. Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

My solution is to not include the abbreviation in the intro at all, and having it only in the infobox after the value tag. I do want to make the article appear tidy as well as effective in conveying information. Let me try something. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The only adjectival use of "sterling" is now appended onto the non-verbal abbreviation. The intro now states that it was a "denomination of sterling coinage", establishing the currency before naming any of the units, citing the pound and shilling later on with no suffixed adjective. I hope this will be to everybody's satisfaction. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

And I have reverted per wp:BRD. Which part of "seek consensus at the article talk page before making potentially controversial edits" did you not understand? Use the talk page for your 'try something', not live space. Please reread Wikipedia:Disruptive editing as it doesn't appear to have sunk in. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought we had established an understanding. I'm not very good at this, I find it hard to convey precisely what I mean exclusively through text. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I believed I had managed to find a solution which satisfied all issues raised. I honestly did not believe my last edit was controversial. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we wait until the RfC closes for further changes. It is likely that all British coin articles may need adjustment based on the outcome of that. Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

[edit conflict] No, you assumed.

Yes, I know a picture is worth a thousand words and if all else fails you can replicate the whole infobox here (but it would be more considerate to put it in your own sandbox and put a link to it here).

More practically, you can write I propose that Value= +1⁄5 be changed to Value=4s, which needs only that you explain why you think so (and which you would have had to write in the edit summary in any case). [PS when using templates like {{char}} and {{code}} and the string includes a equals sign, you need to prepend 1=.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was not sure if the sandbox could actually be shared, thanks for clearing that up.

This is my proposal User:TheCurrencyGuy/sandbox

I believe it is more appropriate to list its value in shillings with the shilling sign plus the disambiguating suffix because the pound was then a VERY large unit, over $100 today, and values of less than a pound were always expressed as multiples of either pennies or shillings rather than fractions of a pound (I believe the original "gothic" florin was the only British coin ever to state its fractional pound value as part of its denomination). TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That is very close to what you have proposed before, that has been rejected. Perhaps a better idea would be to have in the value "4 shillings (4s. or 4/–). 0.20 pounds sterling" Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

We have already explained why use of the notation nn/– should be minimised and definitely should not be used in infoboxes. If really needed in running text, it requires an accompanying explanation [so its presence must really be essential].

Infoboxes are intended to give a 'capsule' summary of the key data in article and should contain only the most essential information with minimal redundancy. "Four shillings, £0.20" is all that needs to be said here. The values "4s, 4/–" are incidental curiosities that can be summarised with "may also be encountered" somewhere low-profile in the body [not the lead!]. This is a British coin, so that the currency is sterling is kind of stating the obvious. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it is extremely important to include the notation in the infobox, it wasn't just "also encountered", it was the standard notation all the way up until 1971. A person with only a cursory knowledge looking things up for a quick summary isn't going to scrutinise the body of the text, they're going to look in the infobox, and omitting how the amount was even depicted is in my opinion a massive error. Prices, for example, would never state that a product cost £⁠1/5⁠, they would say "4/–". It is hardly an incidental curiosity when it is an extremely important piece of information about the way amounts were denoted. I think it is quite unhelpful to the reader to omit how the sum was even notated, because that will leave them clueless if they encounter it in old documents. It already says "four shillings" in the introduction, saying "four shillings" again under "value" is pretty redundant, surely the "value" ought to list the way it was actually written. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with what I proposed in your view, TCG? Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

TCG, you are confusing two different topics. This coin is a double florin and it would be called alternatively "four shillings" not "four slash ndash". If a customer saw an item in a shop window marked 6/6, she might reach into her purse and fetch a double florin and a half crown. The topic of this article is the coin. It is worth four shillings. How that is written is outside the scope of this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm only proposing placing "4/–" after the value tag, not including it in the introduction or in any bolded captions, just listing the equivalent notation value, demonstrating how an amount of that value would be written down. I'm not proposing replacing any bold caption with "4/–". It just seems a little redundant to me to list "Four shillings (Double florin) in the caption, and then listing its value as "four shillings" directly below that, when the "value" tag could be used to list the notation for a sum of that amount.

What happened before was that I made the mistake of citing the full currency value with adjectival suffix, but I realised this was incorrect when I realised the pages for the coins of other currencies did not do this. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you are just trying to find a reason to force in your POV. 4/- is just another way of writing exactly the same information, but in a way that is meaningless to the vast majority of readers: it adds nothing but noise. There might be an argument for a footnote such as equivalent to £24 at 2021 prices. I see no caption that reads "Four shillings (Double florin)" - where is that?

Please note that this is a recent wp:featured article and we don't mess with it without a very sound reason. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC) revised to inflate 4s, not 5s --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm going off the similar articles about coins whose names were not necessarily their denomination, for example the half crown, which is listed at the head of the infobox as "Two shillings and sixpence (One half crown)". I'm not advocating for putting 4/– in a bold caption, merely listing the value in the standard notation format. The shilling and the penny were primary units of account, not merely fractions. it would get ridiculous if the quarter farthing were listed under the value tag as £1⁄3840 instead of ⁠1/16⁠d. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Well this is a featured article, meaning it reaches Wikipedia's highest standards, whereas that one is not (and for good reason: I have just had to correct the very non-standard title of its infobox. It should have read "Half crown", nothing else, because that is the title of the article. No doubt there are other silly errors though unlikely to be as egregious as that one. Though 2/6 comes close: most readers would interpret that as "two-sixths".) See also WP:Other stuff exists.

Hard cases make bad law. Sub-denominations of a penny should be given as fractions of a penny; Sub-denominations of a pound should be given as fractions of a pound. Yes, £1⁄3840 is silly but £0.000625 is not – albeit not particularly meaningful without giving its value in current prices. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I concede amounts not ending in a round shilling could be confusing if using the solidus. Would 2s.6d. be acceptable? I strongly believe values should be given as multiples of pennies and shillings, because these were primary units of account under the £sd system and were not considered to merely be fractions. The pound, the shilling and the penny were always very large units in comparison to the units of other currencies, the franc for example (and the equivalent currencies such as the lira, drachma etc.) was always worth less than the shilling, it was about 25 Frs. to £1. The sou, the ⁠1/20⁠th fraction of the franc (denominated as 5 centimes but always called the sou) was worth about ⁠1/2⁠d, and so was a trivial amount compared to the shilling. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I will add this, I don't think it is particularly helpful to anyone to tag the pre-decimal penny's primary value as an infinite number. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

At this point I just think the "value" tag should be taken out altogether since it isn't going to be resolved satisfactorily otherwise. Infinite numbers are of little value to anybody in actually explaining anything in a concise way and as I've already pointed out, the values of these coins were never ever expressed as pound fractions when they were in circulation. I'm not even sure at the moment what I got wrong, I tried to explain myself but it seems as if there's just a total absence of common ground and mutual understanding, so I vote to take the "value" out completely because otherwise its just going to go on and on and on forever. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion centralised at talk:Pound sterling#"Value =" in infoboxes for historic sterling coinage --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)