Talk:Flowing Hair dollar

message: What's wrong with the images that were here earlier?  Perhaps they're somehow different, but my untrained eye took them to be clearer pictures of the same thing. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The earlier images were undoubtedly far better quality, but I'm afraid that they were not free use as implied on the Commons page. The images were taken from a website. U.S. coins are the work of the United States government, and this one is over 200 years old (and therefore ineligible for copyright). However, when a photograph is taken of a coin, a new copyright is generated because coins are considered three dimensional objects. This means that if I were to use a photograph of a coin that has not been released into the public domain by its author, that photograph must have been taken before 1923. I'm working on finding someone who has taken photos of one of the coins that would consider releasing the photos into the public domain, but I haven't been able to find one yet.-RHM22 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! -- ke4roh (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! It's unfortunate that so many really good coin images are actually not free use.-RHM22 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

text: It's alright, because I've already received permission to use the images in the infobox. Also, your contributions are appreciated, but I had to revert some of them. Firstly, adding external links to the body of an article is highly discouraged. Also, shortened phrases such as "USofA" are considered informal and should usually not be used within an article unless it's part of a direct quote.-RHM22 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I'm taking a look at your article, but don't have a lot of time right now.  You might want to mention that the Constitution gave Congress the power to coin money, you could cite directly to the Constitution, it is somewhere in Article I, in that laundry list of powers Congress gets.  I think there is a template for citing to the Constitution, but i am not certain on that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I'll look into that and see what I can find.-RHM22 (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've added the passage from the Constitution, but I couldn't find a template for citing.-RHM22 (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: It reads a bit dry (I made a number of niggling changes, subtleties which are meaningless to anyone but me probably!) and will work on it probably throughout the evening.  I suggest a bit more context, why things happened.  Mention why the Spanish milled dollar was so popular (there were a lot of them and Spanish America was huge, I think!) Remember, you have great advantages, just look at who is in this article.  Washington!  Jefferson!  People are interested in them, larger than life historical figures, especially interesting aspects outside the school teachings.  I added a quote from the State of the Union speech.  (as the annual address is considered to be).  Jazz it up a bit!  Um, tomorrow ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to mention when discussing the Coinage Act that it prescribed a .892 standard for silver coin, and perhaps better relate that to the assay of the Spanish dollars.  Were the 1792 half dismes .892?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the half disme. I thought I remember reading somewhere that they were sterling. That would make sense because of the legend that Martha Washington donated her flatware, which was almost certainly sterling, for that purpose. Obviously there's probably little truth to that story, but if it was ever to be believed the coins must have been sterling silver.-RHM22 (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting page on that here and it seems it was .892, and I'm surprised too.  There is also an article 1792 half disme.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is surprising! Does Breen agree with the silver content being .892? It would seem that Washington might have deposited the silver himself, though, since the coins were given to him (or at least pickup on by Jefferson on his behalf). Maybe the silverware thing is true.-RHM22 (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments 

message: I'm seeing a huge gap (blank space) between section 1 ("Background") and section 2 ("Establishment of the Mint") because of the size of the two images in the infobox.  I tried moving the image of the Mint (in section 2, on the right) to section 3, but that made no difference [at least in preview] - section 2 would not flow around the infobox.  So at this point, I can see at least two options (other than letting the problem persist):
* Reduce the size of infobox images (I assume they are set to be actual size, though that isn't so stated)
* Figure out some way to get section 2 to move up (flow around the existing infobox, the way that section 1 now does). [That may require moving the image on the right, in section 2, to section 3.]
But obviously I could be missing some better alternative. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 01:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure what to do about that. The coin infobox doesn't seem to support image resizing. I believe I could fix the template to allow resizing, but I'm not certain if it would mess up the existing infoboxes or not. Even if I can do it without causing some problems with the other infoboxes, I'm not certain that it would actually fix the blank space in the article. Let me take a look and see what I can add to the template without changing the parameters.-RHM22 (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Figuring out how to add the extra parameter without disturbing the already existing content is proving trickier than I thought. It might take a while for me to figure out exactly how to do it.-RHM22 (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, after some trial and error, I have added the correct parameter to the coin infobox. The new parameter allows any coin infobox image to be resized while not causing any change to the existing infoboxes.-RHM22 (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with infobox images 

message: The allegorical depiction on early US coins was not Liberty (correctly known as Libertas, The Goddess of Freedom... aka Lady Liberty).  The woman depicted on early US coins is Columbia (named in honor of Christopher Columbus... Columbia means "Land of Columbus"), who was the female personification of the nation/land of the USA, as well as the Americas, and the only one to wear the Phrygian cap (sometimes).  The District of Columbia is named after her.  People often hold the mistaken belief that the US only has one female allegorical figure (Lady Liberty) when there are, in fact, two... Columbia and Liberty.  Columbia was later displaced by Libertas and all but forgotten by the American people.
Notice here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_(personification)
As a side note... Uncle Sam is the male personification of the government.  In the early days, Sam and Columbia had often been considered partners (sometimes called boyfriend and girlfriend, and sometimes even called husband and wife).
Thibeinn (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Liberty