Talk:United States cent mintage figures

message: I don't agree that a merge of the Lincoln Cent and Cent (U.S. coin) articles is a good idea. While related, they are two seperate topics. The Lincoln cent is only one type of penny so the U.S. cent article is needed to cover the general information about the topic. But the Lincoln cent is an important topic in its own right and deserves an individual article. 
I will concede however that the U.S. cent article as it now exists focuses too narrowly on the Lincoln cent. A lot of that information should be moved to the Lincoln cent article and information of other U.S. pennies like the Flying Eagle or Indian Head cents should be added for balance. MK2 09:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Is there really any support for the merger? Ardric47 04:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None whatsoever.  In fact, the current nomination is to SPLIT the Lincoln Memorial cent (1959-2008) from this article; since the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005 assures there will be even more Lincoln-cent reverses in the future (assuming the penny survives), I'm opposed to the split-off as well.  --RBBrittain 23:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact, since I'm the only person to even mention the Lincoln Memorial nomination since it was made way back in July, I think we can safely assume the answer is NO, so I'm removing that nomination.  --RBBrittain 23:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My two cents on the merge issue

message: EVERY U.S. coin deserves its own article.  Eventually this will become a reality.
--Kurt 02:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Is there really any support for the merger? Ardric47 04:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None whatsoever.  In fact, the current nomination is to SPLIT the Lincoln Memorial cent (1959-2008) from this article; since the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005 assures there will be even more Lincoln-cent reverses in the future (assuming the penny survives), I'm opposed to the split-off as well.  --RBBrittain 23:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact, since I'm the only person to even mention the Lincoln Memorial nomination since it was made way back in July, I think we can safely assume the answer is NO, so I'm removing that nomination.  --RBBrittain 23:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My two and a [[Half cent (U.S. coin)|half cent]]s

message: What, no mention of the haircut that Abe got in ~1968?  —Tamfang 04:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, that never happened. --Kurt 06:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's an illusion?  —Tamfang 04:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  haircut 

message: The government didn't seem to upset about this 1974 aluminum cent when it surfaced. As far as I know its still in the public domain and it was highly publicized when it was slabbed. Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 02:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1974 Aluminum Cent Citation 

message: From the article:
:It has also been claimed that some thought the "VD" stood for "venereal disease", then a common but taboo term for sexually transmitted diseases; though few if any records support that idea, the taboo itself might have inhibited any mention of it in records of that time.
If there are a "few" contemporaneous records, then one can make a case for this statement's inclusion in the article, but if there are not "any records", then this is someone's personal anecdotal evidence, (or someone's idea of a joke). 70.20.219.114 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venereal disease? Um...verifiable??? 

message: The first few paragraphs of the "History" section are identical to the words on this page at Pennies.org.  Since the Pennies.org page doesn't cite Wikipedia as a source (but does cite two copyrighted sources) it might be safe to assume the Wiki piece copies the other.  I wonder if the remainder of this article is clean?  Comments?  --Galaxiana 23:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism - Who Copied Whom? 

message: I have one and was wondering if it's picture could be added to this page. It's very worn, however. Quietmartialartist 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1909 Penny

message: The first image in this page is very clearly a 2002 S penny.  Yet the mintage listing at the bottom of the article does not include any pennies from that mint in that year.   Contradiction? 
--Ladynazgul 05:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Image vs Mintage List

message: "In 1969, the design was revised in order to make Lincoln look more like Brenner's original sculptures." I have never heard of this before, and I know quite a lot about coins as I collect them. I tried searching for this on Google but came up with nothing. I'm not saying it's false, I'm just asking if there are any sources that say anything about this design change. If not, then I don't think it should be here unverified.Vince220 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's true.  Q. David Bowers mentions it in his book A Guide Book of Lincoln Cents and further mentions that a quick way to see the differences is to compare 1968S and 1969S Proof cents.  He's right, side by side the differences are quite noticeable.  This was neither the first nor the last time the portrait had been resculpted, btw. Nibios (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1969 Obverse Design Change

message: I figure there is no objection to undoing the merge, given that I've written a (hopefully) good quality article?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge undone 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lincoln cent mintage figures. 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://web.archive.org/web/20060111224727/http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/indian-head.shtml to http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/indian-head.shtml
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) 04:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose that we move this article to Mintage figures of the US cent or a similar name, and include the mintage figures of all cents going back to 1793.
If anyone feels that the article would be too lengthy, an alternative would be to include small cents in this article, and have a separate article for large cents.  Comments? - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 20:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection. Go for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It might take some time, I'll work on the expansion in my sandbox and hopefully have it ready by the end of the month. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 20:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I see it, having a separate list for Lincoln cents is probably better (in a few years it will have been in produced for half of the duration of cent production). - ZLEA T\C 22:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move and expansion 

message: 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) 20:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion