Talk:Florin (New Zealand coin)

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 Bruxton talk 17:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a design for the New Zealand florin was described as a kiwi violently defecating? Source: Stocker, Mark (2005). "'A Very Satisfactory Series': The 1933 New Zealand Coinage Designs" British Numismatic Journal, #75, p. 154 "It is clear that the initials must come out, and I would be glad if you would suggest what kind of buzz-fuzz can go in to take its place. What about a New Zealand fern, very small, or something of that kind? I am afraid that, if you put a plain spot there, it would look as if the kiwi had just relieved nature, and moreover that he was suffering from so violent a need to do so that he had propelled the pellet out with considerable violence."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Guren no Yumiya

Created by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 21:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Florin (New Zealand coin); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I will review this. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• This wouldn't do bad as an April Fool's hook. Bremps... 04:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• @Generalissima: Article looks good. Hook looks good too, which matches article and source. I agree with Bremps that it would make a good April Fool's hook. QPQ is done. Looks good. Everything looks good. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bremps and Generalissima: Our hook needs to state who said this, "was described as a kiwi violently defecating?" Bruxton (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: It does not, as long as it's clear in the article.Generalissima (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bremps and Generalissima: WP:DYKHOOK I would like to get an opinion from @Theleekycauldron:. As I am a reader and potential promotor the hook, I see this as the opinion of one so it seems to me that it is WP:UNDUE to focus on the negative. As it is I cannot even find the quote in the article: the closest I can find is this wording Johnson took issue with the placement of Kruger Gray's initials, describing their placement in the rear of the kiwi as analogous to a pellet propelled out of the bird. Bruxton (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think Leeky is coming so can I get your opinion @RoySmith:? Bruxton (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what question I'm being asked, but yeah, it sure seems like we should be able to find some better hook than that. RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton and RoySmith: hi there! Sorry I haven't responded until now. Looks like there are a couple of things floating around here. In re attribution: I have a little essay about that here, and I think that in this instance, we're okay. "Was described as" is enough to let people know that we're not saying this in wikivoice, the same way we could probably get away with that in the article lead and then elaborate in the body. In re finding the quote in the article: I don't love that it's a quotebox, but I don't think that's a show-stopper. In re due weight: this is the tougher one. I basically land on the idea that we're not being unduly negative about this design because that quote about this design basically stands in a vacuum, making it the default position of the balance. Now, there are some factors that might encourage extra extra caution, such as a BLP or an active controversy or other potential for us to do damage, but this is a proposed design of a coin that isn't in ciruclation where all of the designers are probably dead. It's about as far from a high-stakes situation as you can get. With that in mind, here's my bulletproof version:

• ALT1 ... that a design for the New Zealand florin was criticized as looking like a violently defecating kiwi?

thoughts appreciated :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thanks for the message. My hesitation involved cherry picking the most unflattering comment and highlighting it without stating the qualifications of who said it. Since you do not think it os problematic I will promote it as a quirky. Bruxton (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Florin (New Zealand coin)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 08:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

First time reviewing a GAN (or anything at all) about a physical object and not a media/entertainment-related topic, bear with me here. Should get to this within a week. λ NegativeMP1 08:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

General criteria

• No copyright violations seem to be present.
• No cleanup tags or banners.
• The article is stable, as there is no edit warring.
• This is the first time the article has been GAN'd so no past reviews exist.

Actual review

• Unless you plan on making an article for this, I would delink the Coinage Act 1933. If you do plan on doing so then that's fine.
  • Initially I planned to, but there's not enough good sources. Good point. - G
• "and the bird as "suffering from so violent a need to do so that he had propelled the pellet out with considerable violence"." What? Consider paraphrasing this quote to be more easy to read because this really doesn't make sense to a casual reader such as myself.
  • I included the quote because it was such hilarious phrasing for a kiwi defecating. I added a bit of clarification to make it easier to parse though. - G
• " The coins entered production, and the first florins (still dated 1933, despite delays) entered the country at Wellington on 17 February 1934." → "The coins entered production in 1934, with the first florins entering the country at Wellington on 17 February. The coins were still dated 1933, despite the delays." I think that this would read better.
  • Oh yeah, good idea. - G
• Forgive me if I'm stupid but what does "Dies were prepared" mean? No additional definition for it I can find seems to fit the context of this sentence.
  • Ah good idea. I'll wikilink. - G
• This might sound weird but is there any photo out there of this design that could be added to the article under fair use to see how it looks like a kiwi defacating? Well there's a sentence that I never thought I'd say in my life...
• Sadly, the only image of the original design is an extremely low-resolution scan. :( Also could find no kiwi defecation imagery in commons, but maybe that's for the best. - G
• "besides a crown issue in 1949" Any additional details on the crown issue or is the material the only legitimate difference?
  • As with the Coinage Act 1933, delink Crown (New Zealand coin) unless you intend to make an article on that.
    • I do, but I have a more specific article now that I'm wikilinking to in order to clarify. :3 - G

Overall the article is fine, but I'm going to put it on hold so you can address the minor things I pointed out. λ NegativeMP1 17:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• @NegativeMP1: Made fixes, but make sure to additionally do a spotcheck of a couple sources; those are generally required for GANs review now. Generalissima (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I was in the process of doing such already, I was just getting the prose bits out of the way. Give me a few minutes. λ NegativeMP1 18:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ope, my bad for hopping early on it lmao. Ty very much for your good work. Generalissima (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• While Ref 1 half-way verifies the text, no mention in it says that the British florin began circulation in 1848. I doubt I'm missing something here since searching "1848", "British florin", and "two-shilling piece" all turn up no results in the source.
• Ref 3 seems to pass verification.
• Most of the others I can't check (whether access or time) so I'm going to assume good faith. Eitherway spotcheck doesn't require me to.

Unless I'm missing something in Ref 1, that's going to have to be addressed before this article is passed. λ NegativeMP1 18:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for catching the florin thing. I realized it was unhelpful to describe the pattern-only 1848 mintage so I specified more. Generalissima (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright we're good. λ NegativeMP1 18:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.