Talk:Demand Note

message: This article is my homage to the deletionists that didn't seem too concerned about helping someone new to Wikipedia but rather deleting for the sake of deleting multiple times.  However, whoever it was that eventually did help me, I give my thanks. --Kurt 01:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: older entries

message: Isn't there supposed to be a tag on the article page to identify it as a featured article? Ifnord 00:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment on your talk page. Schutz 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. But I'm wondering why the article has no star on the top right corner nor does it appear to be in the featured article category. Ifnord 00:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is in the category, not the article; as for the FA star, I can see it; it may depend on your skin, though. You should maybe have a look at other featured articles to see if it works for you, or change your configuration. Schutz 00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag? 

message: "Demand Notes not of the most common types usually do not have a price affixed to them and sell at auction prices;" - I can see what's being got at here but perhaps something like "Apart from the most common types, Demand Notes usually sell at auction, rather than being offered at a fixed price;" - "rather than being offered at a fixed price" could be removed if it's seen as redundant giving "Apart from the most common types, Demand Notes usually sell at auction;". Perhaps there's a better phrasing? Rich  Farmbrough 13:35 26  May 2006 (UTC).
:Fixed.  LondonYoung (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Better phrasing

message: The Indian Currency is a Demand NoteDoctor Bruno 14:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So too are English banknotes saying I PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF and then the value of the note.  It does not count for much now, unless you simply want to change a worn note for a clean one. --Henrygb 23:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Currency

message: The main image used in this article doesn't really seem like it belongs in an encyclopedia.  More like an advertisement in a philately numismatics magazine.--Theodore Kloba 19:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another opinion: I think that it is great, as it gives a visual reference of what is being described in the article.  I found that I consulted it several times as I read the text.  It also adds color, which is never a bad thing in my view. Sunray 22:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been debated to death.  The main reason for the image is that it sumarizes the information of the article without being extremely repetative of the images contained in the body of the article.  Also philately deals with stamp but numismatics deals with money. --Kurt 22:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it was debated, but being a featured article draws in new eyes.  I think the content of the image is great, but the graphical style (script lettering, flag background, drop-shadowed vignettes, etc.) just doesn't seem to fit. (Terminology in my previous comment corrected.) --Theodore Kloba 20:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This image does not fit the visual style of the site.  There is no need for a pictorial summary in the article.  - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When this article was proposed as a Featured Article there was a long debate over this image, here,  in addition to the debate in this section and the one above.  Eventually the image remained and the article went on to achieve featured article status.  I am expressing no opinion on the image, and just alerting you to the more extensive debate on another page. --LondonYoung (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image 

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: Several sources indicate that it is a common misconception that these notes were ever paid out in coin by the assistant treasurers after the suspension of specie payment by banks in December of 1861.  This article implies otherwise.  I am going to do further research and edit the article to correct the false impression if research continues to back this up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonYoung (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so I went ahead.  LondonYoung (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specie Redemption after December 1861? 

message: Before I start a FAR, some of the paragraphs like "located respectively to her right and left." in the section $20 notes and "authority to issue banknotes at that time" in Treasury Notes and Early United States Paper Money is unreferenced. If anybody needs help, please let me know. I probably check back in the meantime or so. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I contribute to this article.  Are the concerns to just increase referencing, or is there a problem with the writing style?  The statement "located respectively to her right and left." is evident from the nearby image of the twenty dollar note.  The debate over authority to issue banknotes is covered extensively in Wesley Mitchell's book (currently reference 9) which is already referenced 7 times, so I don't know if an eight reference would help readers or not.  But I am happy to help make changes if you can provide some more specific guidance.  I have copies of most of the necessary reference books to hand and stand ready to respond to any or all advice ...--LondonYoung (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns 

message: I have added high resolution images for each denomination in a tabular format. Is there any objection to removing the lower resolution images for each denomination? Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: High resolution images

message: *Hello! This is a note for the editors of this article that Demand Note will feature in the Picture of the Day section on 10 August 2014, with the images :File:US-$5-DN-1861-Fr.1.jpg, :File:US-$10-DN-1861-Fr.7.jpg, and :File:US-$20-DN-1861-Fr.12.jpg. The template will be as follows:
:Have a nice day! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article to be featured on the main page

message: I think it would be helpful to indicate the size of the notes; I've heard that the size banknotes and dollars has changed over time.  Does anyone have a source for this?  --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size?