Talk:Royal Mint

Tower of London

There's something wrong here; Tower of London wasn't built until after the Norman invasion in 1066, so there can't have been a Royal Mint there in 1066. Cnyborg 09:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By about 1279 it had moved to the Tower of London. Computerjoe's talk 14:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Commercialism

It would probably be appropriate to say something about the Royal Mint's repositioning of itself as a commercial entity, if decent sources could be found. I got some junk mail the other day about a five pound coin being brought out to mark the Prince of Wales's sixtieth birthday. I've seen stuff like this before but from companies reselling new issues of commemorative coinage; this one appears to be from the Mint itself, however, and has typical spam wording like "important documentation inside". 79.68.196.238 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that offering special edition coins means it's repositionaing itself as a commerial entity, and WP isn't really the place to voice greivances regarding spam mail. If, however, you can source your claims, then yes - it would probably be notable. RaseaC (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's more likely to be the London Mint; a completely different entity.--94.10.157.100 (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Royal Mint in Australia

The Royal MInt operated a number of branches in Australia. Melbourne Mint, Perth Mint and Sydney Mint. Did the Royal Mint have branches elsewhere? Ozdaren (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

A lot (most) of pre-modern states had royal mints. Why is this article exclusively about the Royal Mint of the UK? Euro centrism... scratch that, undue Anglophilia, anyone?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is the name of the UK's Royal Mint. I suppose it is analogous to The Football Association and/or the Rugby Football Union. Which specific royal mints were you intending to write articles about and is there a disambiguation issue? Are you suggesting a change of article title? Daicaregos (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the term "Royal mint" is a generic name for any mint controlled by a government headed by a monarch. There are a couple currently - Royal Canadian Mint, Royal Spanish Mint, Royal Australian Mint, Royal Thai Mint - but of course historically there were many others (back when folks used to have kings more often). Specifically I was thinking of adding an article on the Polish Royal Mint, which would have been historical. At any rate, either the search phrase "Royal mint" should take on to a disambiguation page, or at least link to something like List of mints.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Each of the examples given is of an entity called something other than "Royal Mint", although they do have those words as a part of their name. Whilst not particularly scientific, a Google search on the title "Polish Royal Mint" (here) returns one relevant hit. Wikipedia already has an article on the Polish Mint. While I agree that the term “royal mint” means something like: 'a place in which a monarchical government manufactures coins', Wikipedia is not a dictionary and, unless an article on the general term is imminent, I would suggest there is little point in re-directing “Royal Mint” to a disambiguation page at this time. The query raised seems rather frivolous, tbh. Daicaregos (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No. First, "Royal Mint of the United Kingdom" is also an entity called something other than "Royal Mint", just like "Royal Australian Mint" or even "Royal Mint of Malaysia". I see no reason why this particular mint should have a monopoly on "Royal Mint". At best it can be considered a Primary topic but even in that case there should be a disambiguation page and links to where readers can find info on other Royal Mints. The whole point is to make it easier, not harder, to find information. The "not a dictionary" argument is irrelevant here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. It does appear from the evidence below that the UK Royal Mint is the primary topic of Royal Mint. Add to that the fact that the article was moved without discussion, I think moving it back is the right thing to do. Meanwhile, for the oppose !voters, I suggest that building a consensus for a disambiguation page is the right way to go if you think that to be the correct solution. --regentspark (comment) 20:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Royal Mint (United Kingdom) → Royal Mint –The assumptions (per the page move edit summary) made to justify moving this article were incorrect: that "there were other royal mints besides the British one". The Royal Mint is the the only mint of that name (see here and here. Although there are other royal mints e.g.: Royal Canadian Mint; Royal Spanish Mint; Royal Australian Mint; Royal Thai Mint, none are called simply "Royal Mint", except the UK one. It is analogous to The Football Association and/or the Rugby Football Union. Consequently, it is the Common name. It is also the Primary topic - readers looking for information on coin manufacture would most likely search under Coin or Mint (coin) (a list of notable mints is on that page). Readers looking for information on the Royal Mint would search under "Royal Mint" - currently, they would be redirected to Mint (coin). Daicaregos (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the redirect makes little sense. If I search for "Royal Mint", this would be the page I'm looking for. I suspect that people would search for the other royal mints as "Canadian mint", "australian mint" or even "Royal Canadian mint". But nobody searching for "royal mint" wants Mint (coin). I also find it troubling when long standing pages are moved with minimal discussion, not least because a large number of inbound links are now completely broken. Rettens2 (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the redirect so that at least in inbound links work again. Apart from that move to old title. I would have done that under WP:BRD but then we would have this discussion anyway, so we might as well let that takes its course. Agathoclea (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- But is should have a capnote to a disambiguation article, perhaps called List of Royal Mints, as a navigation aid for any one looking for the Royal Canadian Mint, who arrived here by mistake. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - As pointed out above it is simply not true that "The Royal Mint is the the only mint of that name" (though it seems to have gotten hold of the www.royalmint.com domain). The actual name of the thing is "Royal Mint of the United Kingdom". Just like the name of the other Royal Mints is "Royal Canadian Mint", etc. These aren't "called simply "Royal Mint"" (though they probably are, by people who live there or deal with them) but neither is this one. Now, if Rettens2 searches for "Royal Mint" it turns out that he is actually looking for "Royal Mint of the United Kingdom". That's fine. But some other people - myself included - are searching for other things. In fact if I were to search for "Royal Mint of the United Kingdom" I would search for "British mint" or something. This is the problem here - some editors presume that the way they see the world is how everyone else sees it. But that's just hubris, and generally not true. Volunteer Marek  21:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Volunteer Marek: Not for the first time, you claim that The actual name of the thing is "Royal Mint of the United Kingdom". . This is just not true: see here and here, for example. If you look at the Royal Mint's website (here) you will not find them calling themselves "Royal Mint of the United Kingdom". They call themselves “(the) Royal Mint”. Please withdraw your claim, unless you can provide RS evidence of its veracity. Daicaregos (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And this is a problem of 1) having the right redirect in place, and 2) articles properly dab-ing their links. The argument seems to be that just because we got something wrong at one point, then this mistake got copied through out Wikipedia, we must keep the original mistake in place. Volunteer Marek  21:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my complaint was not that it was moved, but that it was moved in a way that broke hundreds of links. Obviously if the article name is causing confusion for many people it needs disambiguating. Where are all these confused people though? The article has been here for eight years and you're the first person to bring it up. Rettens2 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but that silly argument can be easily flipped. Where are all the pissed off people who can't find the article on the British Mint they were looking for? Anyway, basing these kinds of arguments on what *we* think people are looking for is not very useful. And if those links got broken, then fix'em. Volunteer Marek  23:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that one has been in place for eight years, and the other has not. Per WP:TITLECHANGES: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." It's your job to show that a page move is needed. And if that move breaks hundreds of links, it's your job to fix them. Rettens2 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the common name of the Canadian Royal Mint is "Royal Mint" in common conversation. 70.24.247.40 (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support This page is not actually primary topic for the term "royal mint." The Canadians who type in this term presumably mean the Royal Canadian Mint, while the Australians must mean the Royal Australian Mint. Certainly we need a hatnote for the Canadian mint, since that is an equally popular desired destination.[1] This and the Canadian article address the bulk of reader interest, so it is better to take readers here than to a DAB. Kauffner (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And Britons who type in "royal mint" presumably mean Royal Mint of the United Kingdom. Jeez some of you act like Britain was the only country to have had a king. Royal Mint should be a dab. Volunteer Marek  12:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I just been looking at German sources. They point to the British without any qualifier. What do American sources refer to. They don't have their own Royal Mint either? Agathoclea (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The people using the search term "royal mint" are predominately in Britain, Canada, and Australia. So German and U.S. sources aren't relevant. The United States is a republic and does not have a royal mint. Kauffner (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to extablishing common usage they are relevant. More so as international not local usage establishes a primary topic. EG there are many Oktoberfests but only one (primary) Oktoberfest. Agathoclea (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Daicaregos (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's necessary to propose the change and !vote for it, is it? I think most admins do count the proposal as a !vote in favour. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry it is a problem for you. I don't think it was necessary to point it out, is it? If, as you say 'most admins do count the proposal as a !vote in favour', most would discount the !vote. Presumably, the remainder wouldn't. Several contributors here haven't voted at all. Will most admins consider their contribution as a vote for or against? And how do you know? Daicaregos (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Speaking as someone who closes a lot of these things, it makes no difference to me at all whether the proposer also explicitly lists their support in the discussion. I'm not counting anything, because we don't vote. If the nominator remains quiet, then their support is implied. If they vocalize their support, super.

        I try to simply weigh arguments, and not count "!votes" at all. I believe that's what closers of these discussions are expected to do. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the current name as it is disambiguated is ideal. I would be inclined to have Royal Mint as a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, make the article Royal Mint as showing all the commonwealth realm mints. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Long standing article moved without consensus. It is also the common name in English language sources [2] e.g. Canadian Coin Digest uses "Royal Mint" for the British mint and "Royal Canadian Mint" for the independent mint established in 1931. Rettens2 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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

National Royal Mints

To add to the above conversation, which I apparently started, I agree with volunteer Mark. If the Spanish Royal Mint can have a more precise indication of its nationality, I see no reason why the British one cannot. That mint's official title does not include the term "Spanish" or "of Spain". Yet it is designated as such in the article title. I can't see much reason other than nationalism for opposing the modification of the title. Comparisons of usage within the Commonwealth are not as relevant as with mints of other nations, as Spain, e.g., would be. Daniel the Monk (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The argument set out provides no RS evidence, or links of any kind. Without them it is just opinion and, consequently, completely worthless, as is mine or any other editor's. I can understand why no links were provided. It is because The Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre – Real Casa de la Moneda calls itself the Spanish Royal Mint when translated to English (see here). Quite frankly, even if it translated its name to Royal Mint it would still not be the Common name or the Primary topic, which is the Royal Mint, i.e. the one based in the UK. Two further points: please do not question editor motivation, which could be considered a personal attack; secondly, the discussion on changing the page name here has ended, it was your choice not to participate in it. Please stop wasting everyone's time ... again. Daicaregos (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your argument continues to be circular and specious. That judgment on your part constitutes a personal attack, but I don't have a stake in maintaining the status quo as you seem to, so I am not pursuing it.Daniel the Monk (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Founding

I've removed the source used to support the claim that the Royal Mint was founded in 886 because it is a blog posting of a Telegraph article which includes the blog poster's comments. Compare the blog posting to the original article. Moreover, the blog posting contains a copy of the Wikipedia article to support its claim that the founding date was 886. Such circular referencing is unacceptable. The Royal Mint timeline does not include the year 886. It seems that 1279 or 1472 may be the correct founding years (per the timeline), though this and this suggest a date between 871 and 1279. I've also removed the entry from List of oldest companies; it can be reintroduced once an accurate year of founding is established. Mindmatrix 14:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This article:

https://886.royalmint.com/articles/expect-the-unexpected-the-concept-behind-886/

Says that 886 represents "the era" in which the Mint was founded, which is kinda vague, especially coming from the establishment themselves. RenesisX (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Adam Lawrence

Why is it, that when I search Wikipedia for Adam Lawrence, it redirects me here? There is no mention of Adam Lawrence in this article. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. It appears that in 2013 a stub article was created for Adam Lawrence (Chief Executive of the Royal Mint). This was changed into a redirect page pointing to this article since Lawrence is not considered to be notable in his own right. Unfortunately no reference to him appears to have been added to this article. I have now listed him in the inbox as Chief Executive. Polly Tunnel (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

London Mint redirects here

The London Mint Office is a separate company for the Royal Mint. The Royal Minto is the official body that mints coinage for circulation, whereas the London Mint sells commemorative coins.--94.10.157.100 (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

A good point. I think you are correct that London Mint redirecting here risks confusion between the London Mint Office and the Royal Mint. I have looked at the edit history of the original London Mint article and it appears that it was not about the London Mint Office. Instead it concerned an electronic sports franchise team for the Championship Gaming Series. In December 2008 an AfD decision was taken to merge the London Mint article with List of Championship Gaming Series teams. In March 2012 the redirect was changed to point to this page with the edit summary "red". I can see no good reason to ignore the AfD decision and I have moved the redirect back to its previous target. --Polly Tunnel (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Siege money

I have written a couple of article on siege money (siege money and siege money (Newark)) I am not expert in this area and so the articles would benefit from someone who know more about it than I contributing to them. -- PBS (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"Recent Events" Error: Not date reference point

This is obviously wrong as there is no context at the start of the Heading as to either which month ( or year ) that this following sentence is referring to.

Anyone able to help out and correct with an edit pls?

" Recent Events In the same month the mint took in 48 tonnes of silver recovered from the shipwreck of the SS Gairsoppa which was used to produce limited edition coins.[58]

In 2015, after nearly 50 years, the mint began "

Conversion of the Royal Mint South Africa to ammunition production in WWII

Found this video which shows how the Royal Mint SA made rifle cartridges in 1940: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXNXUpOozDg Cancun (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Arctic Star medal.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Bank of England notes

The ‘Operations’ section states that the Bank of England prints the country’s bank notes. Bank of England notes have been produced by the private company De La Rue for a few years now. Also, the country referred to is the UK which has a number of other banknote issuers in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Obviously this article doesn’t need a lot of detail about this but the current info is incorrect. I’ll leave it a few weeks and correct it myself if no one has done it.2A02:C7F:5E8D:9C00:34CA:B2F7:C03B:97F8 (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Foundation of Royal Mint

The article states that Alfred the Great founded the Royal Mint. This is wrong. Coins were produced by moneyers in many towns in the early medieval period and none was more 'official' than any other. The Royal Mint source at [3] says "As one of the first coins to state explicitly that it was minted in London, the Monogram Penny has come to be regarded as a particularly significant coin in the history of the Royal Mint. But minting was taking place in London before it was re-settled by Alfred the Great so, while this coin is a convenient way in which to arrive at the beginning of the Mint's history, quite when it actually began will remain open to question." This is a weasel way of admitting that the claim is a fabrication. There is some evidence for 1279, when centralised control based on London was introduced for the first time, see [4], but not for an earlier date. I will delete this unfounded claim, which is not supported by any academic numismatist I have read. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)