Talk:Moneyer

message: The article begins by asserting that "A moneyer is someone who physically creates money."
Well, no. I feel pretty sure that Roman aristocrats in charge of the mint didn't actually sit around stamping the money themselves, as the body of the article indicates: These magistrates were responsible for the production of the Roman coinage. They were not simple mint workers (monetarii), they were officials who controlled the process, including the design on the coins themselves. Anyone else actually interested in creating a proper lede for this article? Cynwolfe (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  physically? 

message: Moved here from my talk page--Taylornate (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: These aren't "stats", it's a list.  It's more like List of Roman consuls, or the list of governors at Africa (Roman province), or Roman Republican governors of Gaul. Most studies of Roman numismatics take the form of elaborated lists; these might be chronological, or typological, or whatever. The list conforms to provision 3 at WP:NOT#STATS in that it contains "sufficient explanatory text"; it's organized into tabular form, as recommended; there are several individual tables, which are labeled by significance and chronology; and I don't see how it's confusing or non-encyclopedic. Do you work a lot with numismatics or ancient Rome? I'm not well versed in numismatics, but based on what I know, this kind of presentation is appropriate. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The standalone list would need the same introductory material given here. The article was composed before people started demanded citations for every word, so it's based on the list of refs at bottom, it seems. I'm not sure every cell needs a citation, because the Babelon number is given; that in effect is a citation, because it refers to the coin's entry in the 2-vol work cited in the ref list (more exact than a page number). I would feel more comfortable if people who had worked on it had a chance to discuss this before you delete it. I haven't actually worked on the article (maybe a link or two), but I often link to it. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, WP:OWN also doesn't say that editors who are informed about a topic shouldn't have a say in how it's presented; that is, it doesn't privilege ignorance of a topic as grounds for editing. That's why, since I'm not well versed in numismatics, I would like to have some knowledgeable views about how fundamental this kind of presentation is for the subject. I'm ignorant about mathematics, but I don't ask for equations to be removed from the article on differential calculus because I personally find them overwhelming. This article seems overly heavy-duty to me; I don't find the section Moneyer#Roman Republican moneyers to be an accessible read, and the Roman Republic is what I most often write about. But I'm not sure that deleting the tabular material does anything to help that section. I would also argue that wonder whether the tables should be based on Crawford, not Babelon. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a notice at both the Numismatics and Classical Greece & Rome projects asking for help sorting this out: what's useful, what's TMI. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The article doesn't work as it stands. It is a tiny stub about "Moneyer" (3 sentences at the beginning, 2 at the end), a section about "Roman Republican moneyers" apparently copied from Smith (1875), and an enormous unwikified table on the same specialized topic. There will be Wikipedia articles about many of those people, but none are linked, and the abbreviations in the last column are not explained. I agree with Taylornate that renaming would help (but the table still needs to be wikified if it is to be any use to Wikipedia readers). Andrew Dalby 09:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the table should be made usable and wikified. My resistance to deleting was that it would be better to have a knowledgable person work with the material rather than just losing all the work that went into it. Unfortunately no one's come forth to do that. I often link to this article, but it doesn't do a good job of explaining what needs to be explained about the role of the moneyer in ancient Rome. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about putting it on Wikibooks?--Taylornate (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been quite a few years since this conversation and it seems an obvious candidate for a new article so I have moved it to List of Roman moneyers during the Republic.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of moneyers 

message: The two lines of text under "Medieval Moneyers" are introductory material that belongs at the top of the article.  Any objection to moving it there?  One shouldn't have to read through most of the article (including these extensive lists!) just to learn that moneyers weren't limited to the ancient world. MrRK (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  medieval moneyers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moneyer. 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/20070311024814/http://ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/155445 to http://ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/155445
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) 18:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified