Talk:New Orleans Mint

Comment

Contrary to what this article suggest the Mint is not an atypical piece of neoclassical architecture, it is a not untypical example of American Greek Revival architecture. Talbot Hamlin discusses this building in his "Greek Revival Architecture in America". This section could use rewriting. Twospoonfuls 23:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference and Such

On the first paragraph opening the article, I realized it needs some references for the information it has. I was also wondering if the amount of money it stated was in that times value of US money, or is that was the amount it was worth in today. This is very important to our readers. As I cannot fix this, I hope someone else does. Thanks, PЄ|>ρ3® 00:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I was the one who added the portion about how much coinage the Mint produced. The paragraph should read that $307 million is the total face value of the coinage. As in, you multiply the face value of each of the coins ever produced by the Mint by the number of coins of each type ever produced. For example, the Mint produced a total of 720,000 3-cent pieces (all in 1851). 3 cents times 720,000 comes out to $21,600. None of the values have been adjusted for inflation. This has been added now in a footnote. Absecon 59 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to all those who worked on this article, I am so happy to see numismatics-related articles of this quality. Paul 06:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Confederate half-dollar

The Confederate half-dollar should be included in the list of produced coins at the bottom of the page. Same for the Confederate penny if it has any connection to the New Orleans Mint. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Silver dust

I can find no evidence that this is poisonous, rather the contrary. Removed for the moment. Rich Farmbrough, 14:54 7 March 2007 (GMT).

All heavy metals are deemed 'poisonous.' Expecially if they have an easy way intot he hu8man body, as in dust form. -192.28.2.6 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1898-O SD.jpg

Image:1898-O SD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1899O.jpg

Image:1899O.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

1845 O Seated Liberty

I am looking for any information that can be provided on 1845 O Seated Liberty Silver Dollars. 205.56.210.194 (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1851-O seated liberty dollar

The list of coins does not mention this issue, despite the fact that it clearly exists. There is no mention of "1851" under the date ranges in the grid for a seated liberty. Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.29.215 (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no 1851-O seated liberty dollar shown in the Whitman book or by PCGS. [1].Phmoreno (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

possible FAR

There's a lot uncited text, promoted 9 years ago, could use a good review.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Much of this information can be verified by Chapter 1 in Winter (2006) available through the link in Reference 9 , Winter, Douglas.Phmoreno (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet another FA that needs to be demoted

This is really as far as things have gone. A Featured Article needing additional sources for verification! Demote this. TVShowFan122 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Orleans Mint. 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/20110308015029/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1336&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1336&ResourceType=Building

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New Orleans Mint. 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/20150430055314/http://musicatthemint.org/colonial-documents-2/ to http://musicatthemint.org/colonial-documents-2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615123732/http://www.money.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Numismatist&CONTENTID=1836&TEMPLATE=%2FCM%2FContentDisplay.cfm to http://www.money.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Numismatist&CONTENTID=1836&TEMPLATE=%2FCM%2FContentDisplay.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105112958/http://www.stellacoinnews.com/index.php/seated-half-dollars-1861-o/ to http://www.stellacoinnews.com/index.php/seated-half-dollars-1861-o
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130218222223/http://raregoldcoins.com/articles/not-all-great-coins-are-found-at-auction to http://raregoldcoins.com/articles/not-all-great-coins-are-found-at-auction

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Orleans Mint. 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/20060819023851/http://www.blanchardonline.com/AmericanRarities/archive-08/newor.html to http://www.blanchardonline.com/AmericanRarities/archive-08/newor.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"A second chance"

"A second chance is the name of one of the article subsections. I think it sounds like the chapter title of a novel and not like an encyclopedic section title. Thoughts? And can anyone please suggest a better title? Mehaveaccount (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

FA concerns

There's significant uncited text, including the entire table of coins. Layout is dreadful, the modern history (especially Katrina) is underdeveloped, and the Louisiana Historical Center and NRHP stuff in the lead needs expounded upon in the article. This is far from meeting the FA criteria, and will probably go to WP:FAR without significant work. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)