Talk:One pound coin

message: Surely this should be merged with Pound Sterling, any opinions?
Boffy b 23:16, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
:Certainly not -- that's about the currency, this is about the physical artefact. -- Arwel 19:13, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: I saw this text on some 1 pound coins' sides a month ago, when I was in England. It is not mentioned in the article... Why not? -- Euyyn
:Because it's not on the £1 coin, it's the edge inscription of the £2 coin. -- Arwel 12:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standing on the shoulders of giants 

message: The Royal Mint page (as linked to at the bottom) contains very clear images of all the coins, is it possible to use those ones instead of the worn-looking ones that are currently there? Especially given that the 2006 coin appears to have already been retrieved from there. JimmyK
Definitely Minglex 21:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not - see that "Crown Copyright 2006. Royal Mint." at the bottom of the Royal Mint page? Crown Copyright is definitely incompatible with the GFDL licence Wikipedia operates under. Images licenced under GFDL, however poor, are always to be preferred over copyrighted or so-called "fair use" images as a matter of Wikipedia policy. -- Arwel (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I was wondering whether that would be an issue, however, if this is the case, from where was the image of the 2006 coin retrieved? -- JimmyK 19:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of the Coin 

message: I don't think "maggie" was ever really a genuine nickname for the coin - it was just a joke: "It is sometimes called a 'Maggie' because it's think and brassy and thinks it's a sovereign."   I never heard this "nickname" used in any other context than this joke. TomH 18:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree -- I've never even heard it as a joke.  It definitely doesn't belong right at the top. Benjcohen 13:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another joke was about calling it a Scargill, for reasons just as unflattering. This went on to say that a fifty pence coin would then be 'alf a Scargill. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Go on...tell ust the Scargill joke.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maggie 

message: I note that for the years 2004-7 the obverse is given as "Obverse: Rank-Broadley head, inscription ELIZABETH II D G REG F D 2004, starting below, IRB directly under the bust. Encircled by dots." Is this needed? The obverse is already mentioned at the top of the article. Maybe this text should be removed. Alternatively, maybe obverse information should be included for all years.
NotMuchToSay 15:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  obverse 

message: There are quite alot of pound coins circulating in Northern Ireland that have had IRA stamped on them. Is this worthy of a mention?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.108.37 (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless you tell us which banks do or do not accept them.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRA stamp 

message: I just updated the "in circulation" quote based on Royal Mint numbers, and there they have separate values for "face value" and "number of pieces" that are different. Anyone know why the face value is higher than the number of coins? — PhilHibbs | talk 14:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Face value vs. number of pieces 

message: "Also, the writing on the edge may be in the wrong font and look very poor (see image), and the coins often generally look much less sharp and defined, lacking intricate details."
But every genuine issue so far has edge detail. So any coin lacking detail a much better giveaway? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the 1983 coin edge inscription appear in either orientation, or does one style indicate a fake? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterfiing 

message: The first coin design description mentions issue 2008 of the pound coin is an ornamental royal arms, where the 2008 image it is just normal coat of royal arms. Not sure which is correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.89.243 (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Design 

message: in the text of the article you will find:
"1983, 1993, 2003 & 2008"
which is incorrect, as far as i can tell, according to the source cited by the article itself (#1).
it should be:
"1983, 1993, 1998 & 2003"
however when i edited it, the user Martinevans123 reverted it. So, i think im right, and i would like the article to reflect my correction. What should i do?
Kavonjoon (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See your talk page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  i corrected an error which was then reverted... 

message: At the end of March 2011, I raised an issue regarding the heavy use of non-free images on numismatics articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images. Three weeks later, there's been no response. My intention is to remove much of the non-free content of coins/notes from this article for violating WP:NFCC #3a, requirement for minimal use, and WP:NFCC #8, since many/all of the non-free images are designs not specifically referred to in the text by externally sourced commentary. If you have concerns about this issue, your are invited to discuss it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over use of non-free images 

message: Decus does not mean shield in any way, shape or form. The cited page "Short History" is incorrect, thus I am removing it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.126.79 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "An Ornament and a Safeguard", according to the Royal Mint http://www.royalmint.com/discover/uk-coins/coin-design-and-specifications/one-pound-coin Ghughesarch (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decus et Tutamen 

message: The lead contains two different dates on which the coin allegedly was introduced, 9 February and 21 April 1983. Only one can be right, or if they represent different things (such as the first coin being struck and the coins entering circulation), this should be clarified. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for flagging that up. The Royal Mint state 21 April 1983 (and they should know!), so I have reworded the lead accordingly and added a reference. Cloudbound (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original date 

message: Should we create a new article for the 12-sided coin once it enters circulation, or even split off the current round coins content into another, or just add to this article? I just think we could lose some of the details of the round pound, such as the composition in the infobox. Cloudbound (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why create a new article?  The new coin is still a £1 coin so keep it here.  After all the design has changed so much over the years that another change is just another line in the list. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Just thought I'd put it out there for discussion in advance. In terms of changes, it's a bit more of a change than just the reverse, but I agree with you. Cloudbound (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article? 

message: Whilst the obverse/reverse pictures of the 2016 12-sided coin match (16/5/2017), the respective pictures of the round coin don't. To me, it looks odd to depict the 2016 round coin (circulating or not) with a non-matching reverse. The source for the 2016 round obverse does contain a suitable 2016 round reverse, is this something I could attempt to substitute for the current version? It would make a world of difference.  Mongoosander (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, we'll probably lose either the obverse or reverse image of the round pound once it leaves circulation, as both types are currently shown while they are available together. From October, we'll only really need one of the round pound images, similar to how we only show the reverse of the previous designs on the other coin articles. Then again, that's just my opinion. Feel free to give it a go though. Cloudbound (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mismatched pictures for round coin 16/5/2017 

message: The third paragraph re-introduces the new coin which was already explained in the second paragraph. M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - reworded :) sam💬 16:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: intro section needs to be revised

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on One pound (British coin). 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:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5msOSgbfF?url=http://www.dofonline.co.uk/economy/royal-mint-unveils-new-uk-coins.html to http://www.dofonline.co.uk/economy/royal-mint-unveils-new-uk-coins.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ebay and Etsy have auctions and sales where listers claim the edge inscription is an upside down and therefore an error and makes the coin rare.  It would be a service to our readers to point out this is nonsense.  Not sure if an encyclopedia needs that level of detail.  Pretty sure most people would say not. 2600:1700:BB00:3220:497D:3A1B:69DA:5B41 (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auctions with bogus errors claimed 

message: When the coin was introduced, it was initially very unpopular (I dare day that's true of many currency innovations - decimalisation took decades to catch on, as did the 100 times move in the decimal point in France). I remember the Daily Mail running a front page story called "The Pound Britain Doesn't Want". Might be worth a mention if somebody can be bothered.Paulturtle (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, the good old Daily Mail. Does anyone have one of these so we don't touch it properly? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

text: As per Wikipedia policy, the Daily Mail is deprecated. Sources should never come from it. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pound Britain doesn't want 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved to One pound coin. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: One pound (British coin) →  – Common name, primary topic, and to be consistent with Two pound coin. Sceptre (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose In common usage, those diminishing number of people who still use cash say "one pound" or "quid". This feels like a move for the sake of it. Huw much disruption are you seeking to cause? doktorb wordsdeeds 22:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The dab is ugly though. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I will change my !vote to oppose if it is the only way to avoid a horrible hyphen. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 16 November 2023