Talk:New Rochelle 250th Anniversary half dollar

Which one is correct?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, 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)
 * I will manually add the cites. It's on my to-do list.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The last paragraph, about the tradition seems unnecessary for this article.--Jarodalien (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I agree that it adds a bit of helpful and colorful background.  Ergo Sum  14:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Congressional Record
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.  Gerald WL  04:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)