New Rochelle 250th Anniversary half dollar is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hi User:Wehwalt, not easy to dig out but I think this is an issue, footnote 20 is "1936 Congressional Record, Vol. 80, Page 4489–90", which provide source for the entire paragraph. But, this paragraph is pretty much identical with Bridgeport, Connecticut, Centennial half dollar's same section, 3rd paragraph, which rely on footnote 14: "1936 Congressional Record, Vol. 82, Page 4489–4490", only difference between two footnotes is volume NO.. So which one is correct?
Also I remember they were more articles have the same paragraph (or at least mostly the same), just couldn't remember which.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
It should be volume 80 in both cases. The identical cite is needed so I can say it's the Xth in 6 consecutive half dollars. The New Rochelle bill passed on page 4490 but they started passing coin bills on page 4489. Thanks for digging that up. I'll change the volume number on Bridgeport. It's also in Long Island Tercentenary half dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
There seems to be an error generated by the USCongRec template. I need to look into it more. But I think you should take it for granted that if it's 1936, and it says volume 82, it's wrong and it should be 80.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Nothing wrong with the identical source or paragraph, or else I probably couldn't find this. I also tried to use USCongRec template at Chinese wikipedia many times at first when you just write down sources like <ref>19xx ''[[Congressional Record]]'', Vol. xx, Page xxxxx (mm dd, yyyy)</ref>, but everytimes volume NO. came out different, so I'm pretty sure if there were something wrong with this template, not just English version. Thanks for reply so soon.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
It's really more background in nature but it seems better placed at the end of the article to round out the narrative.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Congressional Record refs are inconsistent. For example, ref 20 states "Vol. 80, pp. 4489–90". The next one states "Vol. 80, Page 5653". Notice how the first uses "pp" while the second uses "Page." There should be a template to this; this is also so that the reference uses "archived from the original" instead of the current, unused "Archived May 23, 2019, at the Wayback Machine" template. I'm not sure what template Congressional Record suits, that's why I'm bringing it here. GeraldWL04:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
