Talk:Three-cent silver

Tardy review
I would have raised the following minor points at the FAC, but ir was closed before I got there:


 * Lead: in this usage "less used" should not be hyphenated
 * Lead: "the first silver coin not to be legal tender for an unlimited amount": It might be useful to say here what the legal tender limit was.
 * I looked at it, I think it would be a bit of a digression, for the sake of saying 30 cents.


 * Inception: "the largest American coin in commerce of lower value than the quarter eagle ($2.50 piece) was the half-dollar-sized copper cent..." Can you clarify what you mean by "largest"? Physically, or in terms of value – there surely would have been coins of intermediate values in circulation?
 * Higher denomination. There weren't because they were being hoarded and exported. I will make this clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Inception: "reales" with an "e"?
 * Design: Type 2 and Type 3 are mentioned with no reference to Type 1, and readers are in the dark about the nature of these types until they get to the next section. An introductory explanatory senetence in the Design section might save some head-scratching.
 * Type 1: "...as the silvers were easily lost" – is "the silvers" a reference to the coins? The name does not seem to be used elsewhere in the article.
 * Type 3: "Type 2 coins were rarely fully struck..." Can you explain what this means, to the non-numismatist (e.g. me) who has just read that 1,603,700 of these were struck?
 * Type 3: "Numismatic writer Breen..." – description redundant, he was earlier introduced as "numismatic historian Walter Breen"
 * Type 3 (last line): You have "U. S." as distinct from "U.S." elsewhere in the article.

That's all. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I will work though these in the next few days. I appreciate your comments, very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gotten everything except where commented. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitals
has removed some of the capitals from the article. First, the literature uses them, and we are a tertiary source.. Second, there is a need to differentiate the Mint (Mint of the United States, Bureau of the Mint, United States Mint, depending on time) from the Philadelphia Mint; "mint" tends to lead to ambiguity and it's not fully correct, since it doesn't imply the organization. It's also, since this coin was ended at the same time the Bureau of the Mint was created, to use workarounds like referring to "bureau". I'm willing to work with this, but I don't think the present status quo is a good solution.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't source for style AFAIK. Also MOS:INSTITUTIONS is pretty clear about this. Primergrey (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, "a shorter but still specific form, consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources". "State" or "Treasury" would presumably be capped when shorthand referring to cabinet departments ... I'm not saying you're wrong, I had "Senate" lower-cased when they edited a short journal article I recently did.  I think it's two issues, the MOS one you mention and also whether the rank referred to for various people should be capped or is a false title and should not.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your attitude and I apologize if mine hasn't been quite as good. The MOS is not clear on what an abbreviation is (simply an initialism vs. a shortened version) but MOSINSTITUTIONS is quite clear (with the U/university example). As for job titles, a whole blizzard of Vanity Capping awaits, if we start capitalizing "Mint Director" then "General Manager" then "Assistant Manager", "Lead Hand", "Interim Vice Bean-Counter", I really don't think it's an exaggerated position. Anyway, that's my 2-cent piece ;). Primergrey (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you're fine. I think is a bit more blurry there, especially after 1873 when the administration of the mints (avoided that) moved to Washington.  Let's let it go for now and (at least for my part) I will think about it.  No hurry.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I waited until it was off the MP before I made any changes and there is certainly no rush. Maybe an attempt to clarify at the MOSCAPS page is an option. Anyhow, I'm off to work (I'm a carpenter... or is that Carpenter). Primergrey (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you've shown that given a hammer, you don't see everything as a nail, anyway! Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 09:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you enjoyed it. Usually all we get are complaints!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we use a 3 cent piece again?
I honestly like the idea of a 3 cent piece. We should reinstate it. 2 Cents is too small, 4 cents is too big, but 3 cents is about right. I know that money these days are going less physical, and more digital. But the option is on the table. --MountainJew6150 (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)