Talk:Halfpenny (British decimal coin)

this seems to be a 'bad' title for the article... wouldn't 'British decimal half penny' be a better one? Nobody's going to try to link to 'british coin half penny' especially with the caps. KJ 10:44 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Ambiguous name
To the layman, this article's name does not refer unambiguously to the decimal halfpenny, so it should be renamed. I've started a discussion at WikiProject Numismatics on the subject - please post your comments there. Hairy Dude 22:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Quarter penny is 1.25 of a penny?
in the same vein a decimal quarter-penny coin (to be struck in aluminium) was also proposed (which would have allowed the pre-decimal threepence to continue to circulate at a value of 1.25 new pence)

Shouldn't it be at a value of 0.25 new pence? Alun 05:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No the rate of conversion was 6d to 2.5np, so a thrupenny bit would have had a value of 1.25np. The proposed .25np coin would have allowed change to be given on a 3d/1.25np coin spent on a 1np purchase. Sounds ridculous now but at the time a packet of crisps cost 6d/2.5np.

Obverse Design Date
The current design date under the obverse design heading reads 1994. Since the coin stopped minting in 1984 I'd say this is wrong. I'm unaware of the actual design date though according to the article only one obverse was used making this date 1971. Would some like to check this and edit it? 194.66.75.39 14:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Although the coin didn't enter circulation until 1971, examples dated 1971 were included in commemorative decimal coin sets issued from 1968 onwards (see ) along with the new penny and 2p. Also, the Arnold Machin portrait that appears on the obverse was actually designed in 1964. 217.155.20.163 16:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pence sterling link?
The infobox has recently been edited to describe this coin as half a (linked) "penny sterling". Apart from the fact that I've never heard the term used in the UK, the "Pence sterling" article describes it as the decimal subdivision of the pound sterling sometimes used for quoting share prices, which clearly means that it is a decimal penny which is being described, not the pre-decimal coin described here. -- Arwel (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a Old pence sterling. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"halfpenny"
I suggest the title and article should refer to the "halfpenny" (or, at least, the "half-penny", not the "half penny"). The compound "halfpenny" has been closed up for a very long time: according to the etymology at dictionary.com, it was closed up even in Middle English. Check the OED and then change the article title and contents accordingly. &mdash; Paul G 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * NOAD recognizes only halfpenny . Moving. — Stephan Leeds (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now moved, but the 1982–1983 coins clearly read "HALF PENNY". Which wins—NOAD's documentation of actual usage or the inscription on the coin in its final two circulating years? — Stephan Leeds (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Whichever you decide, please make sure that it's done consistently. At the moment the title is "halfpenny" but the spelling throughout the article is "half penny". I think both spellings are used and both are probably acceptable. I personally prefer "half penny", but not strongly enough to dispute the rename, provided the article is made consistent. 86.165.22.209 (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

Unspecified source for Image:76-926reverse.jpg
I found Image:76-926reverse.jpg and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:76-926reverse.jpg
Image:76-926reverse.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:76-926obverse.jpg
I found Image:76-926obverse.jpg and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:76-926obverse.jpg
Image:76-926obverse.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:76-926.jpg
Image:76-926.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 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) 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What drunken buck-toothed second-grade dropout wrote the section on value?
Does this person not understand that this isn't an effin' iPad and he's not texting his drug dealer for information on STD testing here? Seriously, does this moron actually believe that he or she has improved things by making this section look like a crooked ad for sex on Craigslist?? I am absolutely flabbergasted that someone that stupid would actually know what a Halfpenny is, let alone be interested in it--that is, unless he or she used them to buy weed and energy drinks after stealing them from purses or something... This section is simple proof that breeding with your sisters and parents is a terrible idea, because obviously the offspring will grow up with the sole purpose of being stupid. That's right, no other purpose except to sit there, drool on themselves and be stupid. Holy effin' hell, I can't believe nobody else has noticed this or changed it yet. I mean...good God... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.47.201 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)