![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)