Talk:Moneyer

physically?
The article begins by asserting that "A moneyer is someone who physically creates money."

Well, no. I feel pretty sure that Roman aristocrats in charge of the mint didn't actually sit around stamping the money themselves, as the body of the article indicates: ''These magistrates were responsible for the production of the Roman coinage. They were not simple mint workers (monetarii), they were officials who controlled the process, including the design on the coins themselves.'' Anyone else actually interested in creating a proper lede for this article? Cynwolfe (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

list of moneyers
Moved here from my talk page--Taylornate (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Moneyer, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. That was a massive amount of work from other contributors that you casually deleted because ... well, why exactly? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like an excessive listing of statistics. I think in an article called X, a list of all instances of X that is more than 10 times the length of the rest of the text is beyond the scope of the article and not encyclopedic. Also, it does not cite any references.--Taylornate (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * These aren't "stats", it's a list. It's more like List of Roman consuls, or the list of governors at Africa (Roman province), or Roman Republican governors of Gaul. Most studies of Roman numismatics take the form of elaborated lists; these might be chronological, or typological, or whatever. The list conforms to provision 3 at WP:NOT in that it contains "sufficient explanatory text"; it's organized into tabular form, as recommended; there are several individual tables, which are labeled by significance and chronology; and I don't see how it's confusing or non-encyclopedic. Do you work a lot with numismatics or ancient Rome? I'm not well versed in numismatics, but based on what I know, this kind of presentation is appropriate. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What may be appropriate for a book on numismatics may not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. The sheer volume of these tables is overwhelming and looks like an indiscriminate collection of data, whether you want to call it statistics or not. For this article it is excessive. I'm not convinced it would even be appropriate as a stand-alone list, but if you wanted to move it to one I wouldn't argue. At the very least, however, appropriate references would have to be added.--Taylornate (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikibooks might be the best place for it, but like I said, if you moved it to a stand-alone list I wouldn't argue as long as it is appropriately sourced.--Taylornate (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The standalone list would need the same introductory material given here. The article was composed before people started demanded citations for every word, so it's based on the list of refs at bottom, it seems. I'm not sure every cell needs a citation, because the Babelon number is given; that in effect is a citation, because it refers to the coin's entry in the 2-vol work cited in the ref list (more exact than a page number). I would feel more comfortable if people who had worked on it had a chance to discuss this before you delete it. I haven't actually worked on the article (maybe a link or two), but I often link to it. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting a bit to see what others have to say, but the opinions of editors who have contributed will not be given more weight than those of others, as per wp:ownership.--Taylornate (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, WP:OWN also doesn't say that editors who are informed about a topic shouldn't have a say in how it's presented; that is, it doesn't privilege ignorance of a topic as grounds for editing. That's why, since I'm not well versed in numismatics, I would like to have some knowledgeable views about how fundamental this kind of presentation is for the subject. I'm ignorant about mathematics, but I don't ask for equations to be removed from the article on differential calculus because I personally find them overwhelming. This article seems overly heavy-duty to me; I don't find the section Moneyer to be an accessible read, and the Roman Republic is what I most often write about. But I'm not sure that deleting the tabular material does anything to help that section. I would also argue that wonder whether the tables should be based on Crawford, not Babelon. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I posted a notice at both the Numismatics and Classical Greece & Rome projects asking for help sorting this out: what's useful, what's TMI. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Another possibility would be to change the title of the article to "List of Roman Republic moneyers".--Taylornate (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the tables are helpful because they aren't well-explained, and there isn't much use for the inscriptions especially for the majority of common readers. I think this is perfectly suitable for a book on Roman moneyers, but entirely too esoteric for most people. I think a simplified list with names and dates might be good with a reference to wherever this table came from, but I don't think it adds anything positive to the article as it is. Cnscaevola (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't work as it stands. It is a tiny stub about "Moneyer" (3 sentences at the beginning, 2 at the end), a section about "Roman Republican moneyers" apparently copied from Smith (1875), and an enormous unwikified table on the same specialized topic. There will be Wikipedia articles about many of those people, but none are linked, and the abbreviations in the last column are not explained. I agree with Taylornate that renaming would help (but the table still needs to be wikified if it is to be any use to Wikipedia readers). And rew D alby  09:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the table should be made usable and wikified. My resistance to deleting was that it would be better to have a knowledgable person work with the material rather than just losing all the work that went into it. Unfortunately no one's come forth to do that. I often link to this article, but it doesn't do a good job of explaining what needs to be explained about the role of the moneyer in ancient Rome. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about putting it on Wikibooks?--Taylornate (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been quite a few years since this conversation and it seems an obvious candidate for a new article so I have moved it to List of Roman moneyers during the Republic.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

medieval moneyers
The two lines of text under "Medieval Moneyers" are introductory material that belongs at the top of the article. Any objection to moving it there? One shouldn't have to read through most of the article (including these extensive lists!) just to learn that moneyers weren't limited to the ancient world. MrRK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moneyer. 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/20070311024814/http://ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/155445 to http://ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/155445

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)