This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Royal Mint article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Royal Mint received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's something wrong here; Tower of London wasn't built until after the Norman invasion in 1066, so there can't have been a Royal Mint there in 1066. Cnyborg 09:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It would probably be appropriate to say something about the Royal Mint's repositioning of itself as a commercial entity, if decent sources could be found. I got some junk mail the other day about a five pound coin being brought out to mark the Prince of Wales's sixtieth birthday. I've seen stuff like this before but from companies reselling new issues of commemorative coinage; this one appears to be from the Mint itself, however, and has typical spam wording like "important documentation inside". 79.68.196.238 ( talk) 19:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The Royal MInt operated a number of branches in Australia. Melbourne Mint, Perth Mint and Sydney Mint. Did the Royal Mint have branches elsewhere? Ozdaren ( talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
A lot (most) of pre-modern states had royal mints. Why is this article exclusively about the Royal Mint of the UK? Euro centrism... scratch that, undue Anglophilia, anyone? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. It does appear from the evidence below that the UK Royal Mint is the primary topic of Royal Mint. Add to that the fact that the article was moved without discussion, I think moving it back is the right thing to do. Meanwhile, for the oppose !voters, I suggest that building a consensus for a disambiguation page is the right way to go if you think that to be the correct solution. -- regentspark ( comment) 20:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Royal Mint (United Kingdom) → Royal Mint –The assumptions (per the page move edit summary) made to justify moving this article were incorrect: that "there were other royal mints besides the British one". The Royal Mint is the the only mint of that name ( see here and here. Although there are other royal mints e.g.: Royal Canadian Mint; Royal Spanish Mint; Royal Australian Mint; Royal Thai Mint, none are called simply "Royal Mint", except the UK one. It is analogous to The Football Association and/or the Rugby Football Union. Consequently, it is the Common name. It is also the Primary topic - readers looking for information on coin manufacture would most likely search under Coin or Mint (coin) (a list of notable mints is on that page). Readers looking for information on the Royal Mint would search under "Royal Mint" - currently, they would be redirected to Mint (coin). Daicaregos ( talk) 14:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: Not for the first time, you claim that The actual name of the thing is "Royal Mint of the United Kingdom". . This is just not true: see here and here, for example. If you look at the Royal Mint's website ( here) you will not find them calling themselves "Royal Mint of the United Kingdom". They call themselves “(the) Royal Mint”. Please withdraw your claim, unless you can provide RS evidence of its veracity. Daicaregos ( talk) 16:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I try to simply weigh arguments, and not count "!votes" at all. I believe that's what closers of these discussions are expected to do. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
To add to the above conversation, which I apparently started, I agree with volunteer Mark. If the Spanish Royal Mint can have a more precise indication of its nationality, I see no reason why the British one cannot. That mint's official title does not include the term "Spanish" or "of Spain". Yet it is designated as such in the article title. I can't see much reason other than nationalism for opposing the modification of the title. Comparisons of usage within the Commonwealth are not as relevant as with mints of other nations, as Spain, e.g., would be. Daniel the Monk ( talk) 03:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Your argument continues to be circular and specious. That judgment on your part constitutes a personal attack, but I don't have a stake in maintaining the status quo as you seem to, so I am not pursuing it. Daniel the Monk ( talk) 22:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the source used to support the claim that the Royal Mint was founded in 886 because it is a blog posting of a Telegraph article which includes the blog poster's comments. Compare the blog posting to the original article. Moreover, the blog posting contains a copy of the Wikipedia article to support its claim that the founding date was 886. Such circular referencing is unacceptable. The Royal Mint timeline does not include the year 886. It seems that 1279 or 1472 may be the correct founding years (per the timeline), though this and this suggest a date between 871 and 1279. I've also removed the entry from List of oldest companies; it can be reintroduced once an accurate year of founding is established. Mind matrix 14:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Why is it, that when I search Wikipedia for Adam Lawrence, it redirects me here? There is no mention of Adam Lawrence in this article. 155.213.224.59 ( talk) 17:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The London Mint Office is a separate company for the Royal Mint. The Royal Minto is the official body that mints coinage for circulation, whereas the London Mint sells commemorative coins.-- 94.10.157.100 ( talk) 14:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I have written a couple of article on siege money ( siege money and siege money (Newark)) I am not expert in this area and so the articles would benefit from someone who know more about it than I contributing to them. -- PBS ( talk) 11:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
This is obviously wrong as there is no context at the start of the Heading as to either which month ( or year ) that this following sentence is referring to.
Anyone able to help out and correct with an edit pls?
" Recent Events In the same month the mint took in 48 tonnes of silver recovered from the shipwreck of the SS Gairsoppa which was used to produce limited edition coins.[58]
In 2015, after nearly 50 years, the mint began "
Found this video which shows how the Royal Mint SA made rifle cartridges in 1940: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXNXUpOozDg Cancun ( talk) 09:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The ‘Operations’ section states that the Bank of England prints the country’s bank notes. Bank of England notes have been produced by the private company De La Rue for a few years now. Also, the country referred to is the UK which has a number of other banknote issuers in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Obviously this article doesn’t need a lot of detail about this but the current info is incorrect. I’ll leave it a few weeks and correct it myself if no one has done it. 2A02:C7F:5E8D:9C00:34CA:B2F7:C03B:97F8 ( talk) 13:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The article states that Alfred the Great founded the Royal Mint. This is wrong. Coins were produced by moneyers in many towns in the early medieval period and none was more 'official' than any other. The Royal Mint source at [3] says "As one of the first coins to state explicitly that it was minted in London, the Monogram Penny has come to be regarded as a particularly significant coin in the history of the Royal Mint. But minting was taking place in London before it was re-settled by Alfred the Great so, while this coin is a convenient way in which to arrive at the beginning of the Mint's history, quite when it actually began will remain open to question." This is a weasel way of admitting that the claim is a fabrication. There is some evidence for 1279, when centralised control based on London was introduced for the first time, see [4], but not for an earlier date. I will delete this unfounded claim, which is not supported by any academic numismatist I have read. Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Royal Mint article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Royal Mint received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's something wrong here; Tower of London wasn't built until after the Norman invasion in 1066, so there can't have been a Royal Mint there in 1066. Cnyborg 09:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It would probably be appropriate to say something about the Royal Mint's repositioning of itself as a commercial entity, if decent sources could be found. I got some junk mail the other day about a five pound coin being brought out to mark the Prince of Wales's sixtieth birthday. I've seen stuff like this before but from companies reselling new issues of commemorative coinage; this one appears to be from the Mint itself, however, and has typical spam wording like "important documentation inside". 79.68.196.238 ( talk) 19:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The Royal MInt operated a number of branches in Australia. Melbourne Mint, Perth Mint and Sydney Mint. Did the Royal Mint have branches elsewhere? Ozdaren ( talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
A lot (most) of pre-modern states had royal mints. Why is this article exclusively about the Royal Mint of the UK? Euro centrism... scratch that, undue Anglophilia, anyone? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. It does appear from the evidence below that the UK Royal Mint is the primary topic of Royal Mint. Add to that the fact that the article was moved without discussion, I think moving it back is the right thing to do. Meanwhile, for the oppose !voters, I suggest that building a consensus for a disambiguation page is the right way to go if you think that to be the correct solution. -- regentspark ( comment) 20:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Royal Mint (United Kingdom) → Royal Mint –The assumptions (per the page move edit summary) made to justify moving this article were incorrect: that "there were other royal mints besides the British one". The Royal Mint is the the only mint of that name ( see here and here. Although there are other royal mints e.g.: Royal Canadian Mint; Royal Spanish Mint; Royal Australian Mint; Royal Thai Mint, none are called simply "Royal Mint", except the UK one. It is analogous to The Football Association and/or the Rugby Football Union. Consequently, it is the Common name. It is also the Primary topic - readers looking for information on coin manufacture would most likely search under Coin or Mint (coin) (a list of notable mints is on that page). Readers looking for information on the Royal Mint would search under "Royal Mint" - currently, they would be redirected to Mint (coin). Daicaregos ( talk) 14:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: Not for the first time, you claim that The actual name of the thing is "Royal Mint of the United Kingdom". . This is just not true: see here and here, for example. If you look at the Royal Mint's website ( here) you will not find them calling themselves "Royal Mint of the United Kingdom". They call themselves “(the) Royal Mint”. Please withdraw your claim, unless you can provide RS evidence of its veracity. Daicaregos ( talk) 16:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I try to simply weigh arguments, and not count "!votes" at all. I believe that's what closers of these discussions are expected to do. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
To add to the above conversation, which I apparently started, I agree with volunteer Mark. If the Spanish Royal Mint can have a more precise indication of its nationality, I see no reason why the British one cannot. That mint's official title does not include the term "Spanish" or "of Spain". Yet it is designated as such in the article title. I can't see much reason other than nationalism for opposing the modification of the title. Comparisons of usage within the Commonwealth are not as relevant as with mints of other nations, as Spain, e.g., would be. Daniel the Monk ( talk) 03:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Your argument continues to be circular and specious. That judgment on your part constitutes a personal attack, but I don't have a stake in maintaining the status quo as you seem to, so I am not pursuing it. Daniel the Monk ( talk) 22:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the source used to support the claim that the Royal Mint was founded in 886 because it is a blog posting of a Telegraph article which includes the blog poster's comments. Compare the blog posting to the original article. Moreover, the blog posting contains a copy of the Wikipedia article to support its claim that the founding date was 886. Such circular referencing is unacceptable. The Royal Mint timeline does not include the year 886. It seems that 1279 or 1472 may be the correct founding years (per the timeline), though this and this suggest a date between 871 and 1279. I've also removed the entry from List of oldest companies; it can be reintroduced once an accurate year of founding is established. Mind matrix 14:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Why is it, that when I search Wikipedia for Adam Lawrence, it redirects me here? There is no mention of Adam Lawrence in this article. 155.213.224.59 ( talk) 17:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The London Mint Office is a separate company for the Royal Mint. The Royal Minto is the official body that mints coinage for circulation, whereas the London Mint sells commemorative coins.-- 94.10.157.100 ( talk) 14:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I have written a couple of article on siege money ( siege money and siege money (Newark)) I am not expert in this area and so the articles would benefit from someone who know more about it than I contributing to them. -- PBS ( talk) 11:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
This is obviously wrong as there is no context at the start of the Heading as to either which month ( or year ) that this following sentence is referring to.
Anyone able to help out and correct with an edit pls?
" Recent Events In the same month the mint took in 48 tonnes of silver recovered from the shipwreck of the SS Gairsoppa which was used to produce limited edition coins.[58]
In 2015, after nearly 50 years, the mint began "
Found this video which shows how the Royal Mint SA made rifle cartridges in 1940: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXNXUpOozDg Cancun ( talk) 09:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The ‘Operations’ section states that the Bank of England prints the country’s bank notes. Bank of England notes have been produced by the private company De La Rue for a few years now. Also, the country referred to is the UK which has a number of other banknote issuers in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Obviously this article doesn’t need a lot of detail about this but the current info is incorrect. I’ll leave it a few weeks and correct it myself if no one has done it. 2A02:C7F:5E8D:9C00:34CA:B2F7:C03B:97F8 ( talk) 13:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The article states that Alfred the Great founded the Royal Mint. This is wrong. Coins were produced by moneyers in many towns in the early medieval period and none was more 'official' than any other. The Royal Mint source at [3] says "As one of the first coins to state explicitly that it was minted in London, the Monogram Penny has come to be regarded as a particularly significant coin in the history of the Royal Mint. But minting was taking place in London before it was re-settled by Alfred the Great so, while this coin is a convenient way in which to arrive at the beginning of the Mint's history, quite when it actually began will remain open to question." This is a weasel way of admitting that the claim is a fabrication. There is some evidence for 1279, when centralised control based on London was introduced for the first time, see [4], but not for an earlier date. I will delete this unfounded claim, which is not supported by any academic numismatist I have read. Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)