Talk:America the Beautiful quarters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please change the map[edit]

Even if the colors stand for a code, I dislike maps of the United States that color touching regions the same. I suggest you re-load the map so that the years are symbolized by designs rather than colors. One year can be represented by pure white; one by vertical stripes; one by horizontal stripes; etc. Georgia guy (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is your reasoning for the change purely aesthetic? It might be worth doing, but probably not unless there's some practical reason for it. It would probably be a little difficult to come up with 12 different designs.-RHM22 (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

scarcity[edit]

These guys are scarce! Could someone please add a bit on their low mintage amounts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.100.8 (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering this also. These are roughly ten times less minted than the 50 State Quarters. Or is there an explanation at all? 85.217.35.155 (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America the Beautiful Quarters - 2012 El Yunque National Forest Quarter for Puerto Rico[edit]

The third year of the new circulating commemorative quarter series will begin with the El Yunque National Forest Quarter for Puerto Rico. This coin will be the first coin of the series to feature a site from one of the United States Territories.

Although the El Yunque Quarter will not be released until early 2012, design candidates have already been prepared by the United States Mint. Two of the designs highlight the natural beauty of the area with the depiction of a waterfall, while other designs focus on the animal life within the park. Both the CFA and CCAC who reviewed the designs thought it was more important to highlight the animal life, particularly the endangered species like the coqui frog.

Whatever reverse design is ultimately selected by the Secretary of the Treasury, the obverse will depict a portrait of George Washington. This image will be used for each release of the America the Beautiful Quarters series.

--Seablade (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 El Yunque National Park U.S. Mint Designs
2012 El Yunque National Park U.S. Mint Designs

--Seablade (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What order are these in?[edit]

The state quarters were in order of statehood, but these seem to be in a random order? Is there an order to the order? 174.56.21.245 (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like it says in the article, "Quarters will be issued depicting designs of national parks and sites in the order of which that park or site was deemed a national site." That's with one quarter being issued for each state, plus quarters for D.C. and the territories. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the New Jersey quarter depict something that's in New York?[edit]

The statue of liberty is in New York, as is half of Ellis Island that people are allowed to go to. Ericl (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what a talk page is for. Please keep your questions to what can improve the article. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Ellis Island article: Ellis Island is located in Jersey City, New Jersey. Enough proof? 82.141.64.59 (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Size, composition?[edit]

anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.32.36 (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Are you serious? That is probably quite well documented in quarter article. 82.141.64.59 (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Why are some of the quarter images the proofs, and some are the uncirculated? I think there should at least be a little consistency. Hotelmason241 (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some of the pictures missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.176.134 (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Photos[edit]

I would just like to request that if anyone has access, could they put the pictures of the 2017 quarters on the notices. Thanks. Loudornbach (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Loudornbach:  Done — Mudwater (Talk) 19:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need an elements depicted column[edit]

What this article needs is a new column in the Designs table, for "elements depicted" -- like in the tables for the 50 State Quarters#Designs and the District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarters#Designs. For example, for the Kisatchie National Forest (Louisiana) quarter, it could say, "A wild turkey in flight over bluestem grass, with long leaf pine trees in the background". (I'm getting this from the National Park Quarters website, here.) Thoughts? — Mudwater (Talk) 23:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the "elements depicted" column should be just to the right of the "design" column that shows the images of the quarters. That's how it is in the other two articles. Might it also be good to move the "release date" column to be one of the first columns, as in the other two articles? I would vote for moving "release date" to be after "no." and before "jurisdiction". How does that sound? — Mudwater (Talk) 18:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the "elements depicted" column, here. Pretty nice, if I say so myself. (I've left the "release date" column where it was.) — Mudwater (Talk) 21:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 June 2019[edit]

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: Withdrawn by nominator with no support votes present. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– Quarters is not a proper noun. Also requesting this move to establish consistency with other US coinage articles. ZLEA T\C 16:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ZLEA: Can you provide example(s) of such article titles? Just wondering since the series may be a proper name, and this all applicable words would then be capitalized. (Also, note to anyone who may move these requests to a talk page: these should be bundled as a multi-page move on one talk page.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943 The examples you requested: Washington quarter, Standing Liberty quarter, Sacagawea dollar, Kennedy half dollar, Roosevelt dime, Jefferson nickel, Lincoln cent (for more, see Template:Coinage (United States)) - ZLEA T\C 19:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per the information in these articles, their names were the name of a program or series to make the quarters, which also seems to be the scope of the articles ... their respective programs. For that reason, the "Q" in "Quarters" would be capitalized since the word "Quarters" is part of each respective program's name. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the articles should be moved to ...Quarter Program instead, as the current titles imply that the articles are about the coins themselves. - ZLEA T\C 19:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943 If you don't mind, I will close this move request and open a new one for ...Quarter Program. - ZLEA T\C 19:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ZLEA: No worries. I'll close this discussion then. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 June 2019 (second)[edit]

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: Withdrawn by nominator with no support votes present. (non-admin closure) - ZLEA T\C 16:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– These articles are about United States Mint coin programs, not necessarily the coins themselves. The requested titles are the official names of the programs according to the US Mint's website. ZLEA T\C 20:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should point out that two similar US coin articles have similar names: Presidential $1 Coin Program and American Innovation $1 Coin Program - ZLEA T\C 01:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per common names and brevity. The present names seem adequate and refer to both the coins and the program (as do the articles), and retain the proper noun status even if "Program" isn't added to the title. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn Would you be opposed to changing the "Quarters" in the titles to "quarters" for consistency? - ZLEA T\C 22:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Program" seems implied by the title being in upper-case. Maybe others feel that "Program" will be needed to keep the names appropriately upper-cased, although to me that seems like adding an extra word to an understandable title. So I'll keep watch of the discussion and see if it changes my comment. Thanks for the interesting nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without the word "Program" (or "program"), these seem incorrectly capitalized, since they are not proper nouns unless that word is included (further comment on proper nouns below). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BarrelProof My answers to your questions are:
"Program" should be uppercase as it is a proper noun.
Fugio Cent→Fugio cent; yes
Silver center cent→Silver Center cent; not sure, I think "silver center" is more of a description of the coin rather than a name.
America the Beautiful Silver Bullion Coins→America the Beautiful silver bullion coins; yes
American Innovation $1 Coin Program→American Innovation dollars; depends on if this article is moved to "quarters" or "Quarters Program". - ZLEA T\C 13:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened an RM for Fugio Cent→Fugio cent. Regarding "Silver center cent" – in my view, Flowing Hair dollar and Draped Bust dollar and perhaps even Liberty Head nickel also seem potentially more like descriptions than names (although they are descriptions of the artwork rather than descriptions of the coin material itself). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Flowing Hair", "Draped Bust", and "Liberty Head" are the names of coinage designs, some of which were used on multiple denominations. Some numismatists name the silver center cent "Voight cent" after its designer Henry Voight, although the name also refers to other 1792 cent patterns designed by Voight. - ZLEA T\C 16:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to America the Beautiful quarters, District of Columbia and United States Territories quarters (or District of Columbia and U.S. territories quarters) and 50 State quarters (or U.S. state quarters). The articles should primarily be about the coins rather than the programs that created the coins, per the discussion below. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support the bold names, but "50 state quarters" is questionable, as "50 State" is the name of the series of designs (similar to "Washington" or "Standing Liberty"). As for the other alternate name, if you're going to abbreviate United States, you might as well abbreviate District of Columbia like the US Mint does (DC and U.S. Territories quarters). - ZLEA T\C 20:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My non-bold suggestion was "U.S. state quarters" (intended as a descriptive common name – and perhaps it should have just been State quarters), not "50 state quarters". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the "U.S. state" in the title, my bad. "U.S. state quarters" makes more sense, but most numismatists call the series "50 State quarters". - ZLEA T\C 23:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is the scope of these articles the coins themselves, or the programs which resulted in the coins being created? I think the answer to that question will provide some insight on whether or not "Quarters" should be capitalized. Steel1943 (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The way the articles are worded, America the Beautiful Quarters appears to be about the coins themselves, while 50 State Quarters and District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarters appear to be about the coin programs. I think all three articles (plus the two dollar coin articles) should be rewritten so they are all about either the coins themselves of their programs. - ZLEA T\C 13:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely want these articles to be about the coins themselves, in my opinion. But as part of explaining the coins, they should also talk about the programs. If some of the articles currently talk about the programs a lot and others not so much, I think that's fine. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. The coins have greater historical importance and public interest than the programs that created them. Coins last a long time. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But are worth less and less. Both the coins and programs are notable, so each page should cover both. An interesting side fact: (or rumor): The U.S. won't get rid of the penny because Illinois senators and congressmen want it kept because it's become a long-time honoring of Abe Lincoln. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm sure the Senate Majority Leader (a member of The party of Lincoln) would be happy to point out, Mr. Lincoln was a Kentuckian. He didn't move to Illinois until he was already an adult. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the Indiana politicians, they have a hold on Lincoln's other leg. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Quarters" already implies a series, set, or program of coins. Making the name longer does not solve any issues. Reywas92Talk 21:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92 A capital "Quarters" goes against WP:NCCAPS, as "quarters" is not a proper noun without "Program". - ZLEA T\C 21:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lowercase quarters works too. Reywas92Talk 21:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no one opposes, I will withdraw this move request and open a new one similar to the original. - ZLEA T\C 15:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 June 2019[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed, after extended time for discussion. Consensus to move the pages away from the capitalization from the current titles is clear, with discussion primarily revolving around other elements of the appropriate target. The proposal to add "coins" is well-reasoned, given the tendency of dollars to be paper bills. These aspects of the close may, of course, be subject to another discussion at some point. bd2412 T 04:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– All these US coin articles break the standard that just about every other US circulating coin article follows. This standard is a description of the coin (usually the name of its design) followed by a lowercase denomination, which is proper per WP:NCCAPS. The result of a discussion in 2011 was that "quarters" should be capitalized as it is part of the program name. I believe that the articles should be about the coins themselves, not the program that authorized the coins. "Quarters" is not a proper noun unless "Program" is included in the title.

In the case of the dollar coins, once again I believe that the articles should be about the coins themselves and not the programs that authorized them. ZLEA T\C 16:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 22:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC) There is clear consensus for the first two moves as proposed, and there is consensus that the other three pages should be moved, but there is no consensus yet on which titles those pages should be moved to. --Relisting. KSFT (t|c) 22:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in spirit: However, I have two questions: 1) Should it be "DC and US" (without dots) or "D.C. and U.S." (with dots)? I see that the usage in the article is somewhat mixed currently. My personal impression is that within the United States, most people would include the dots. 2) Why is it "quarters" (plural) but "dollar" (singular)? For the second and third articles, plural is more natural, but I am not so sure about the America the Beautiful quarter(s). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 2009 quarters article should probably have periods, as that is what the US Mint uses on its website. As for "quarters" and "dollar", the singular dollar was a mistake, I've changed that. - ZLEA T\C 20:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as now above, but with D.C. and U.S. Territories quarters, although I'm still a little confused about the plural question. (Strikethrough above to prevent appearing to !vote twice.) —BarrelProof (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the plural "quarters" and "dollars" is because they are a series of coin designs, rather than a single standard design such as the Washington quarter or Sacagawea dollar. - ZLEA T\C 00:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but an America the Beautiful quarter is also a Washington quarter. And the Washington quarters and Sacagawea dollars have had a variety of different reverse designs. It's a little hard to see why we use the singular when talking about all the various reverse designs for the Washington quarters and the Sacagawea dollars, but the plural for the America the Beautiful quarter and the American Innovation dollar – these are each just a family with basically a single obverse and a variety of different reverses, right? I think there's less of a question for "50 State" and "District of Columbia and United States Territories" and "Presidential". We would naturally use singular for "New Hampshire quarter" or "Millard Fillmore dollar", but plural when talking about all 50 states or all 39 commemorated presidents (and 39 first spouses) as a group. But it certainly seems possible have a single American Innovation dollar in your pocket. (I'm not suggesting that I have a better idea than yours, I'm just rambling to see if there's a clear rule to be applied here. Maybe the basic idea is that each of these was inherently designed to be a family of different coins from the beginning, as contrasted with other coins that started more as a single design and then later expanded to include variations.) —BarrelProof (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While it is possible to have a single 50 State quarter of American Innovation dollar in your pocket, the articles are about the all the coin designs. That quarter in your pocket would most likely be referred to as a "50 State New Hampshire quarter" by a numismatist. There are fifty different 50 State quarter designs, and it makes more sense to have a plural "quarters" in the title. As for the Sacagawea dollar, the new commemorative designs are commonly referred to as "Native American dollars", which might be notable enough for their own separate article. - ZLEA T\C 14:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first two all (changed my mind per discussion below), but Oppose third (the full name seems better as a descriptor). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're not objecting to the lowercase "quarters", right? I think that's the main issue with that article's title. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Mint itself uses "D.C. and U.S. Territories" (as shown above), so we're not just making this up, and it's substantially more concise that way. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lowercase seems fine. Also would keep Presidential $1 coins and American Innovation $1 coins with the 's' added. The full 'District...' just seems better, so on that one it's more ILIKEIT. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But "... $1 coins" doesn't seem to fit the pattern of the titles used for other dollar coins on Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but just "Presidential dollars" could mean something other than coins, which is why I'd keep "coins" as part of the name either way it's spelled (the "official" name includes the $1, and that's one where it may be better to keep that style with the word "coins" rather than changing the title to 'Presidential dollars'). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per longstanding well-accepted principles at WP:NCCAPS to not cap words not part of a proper name. And yes I think BarrelProof's other suggestions are good, too. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-support "American Innovation $1 Coin Program" is the official title given by congress (H.R. 770 - aka the "American Innovation $1 Coin Act" according to the bill) and therefore, as a proper name all 4 words should be spelled out. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman0426 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-115hr770enr/pdf/BILLS-115hr770enr.pdf
Iceman0426 While "American Innovation $1 Coin Program" is the name of the program, the article should be about the coins themselves. The name of the coins should be the title of the article. - ZLEA T\C 22:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ZLEA I agree that that an article about the coins should be capitalized as suggested. However the page in question is only talking about the program history, and the program designs. The other US Mint programs are done similar - the page is about the program, and 'shows' the design, but is not about the individual coins of the program. If the goal is to talk about the coin and not the program, perhaps we could consider making a page about each coin that is linked to the program page. Iceman0426 (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The program doc doesn't declare any official name, it simply has a heading "SEC. 2. AMERICAN INNOVATION $1 COIN PROGRAM." I'd take that to be descriptive. The only other place it has "program" is in the heading "(7) TERMINATION OF PROGRAM.—" I wouldn't take that to be a proper name either. Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Iceman0426 While the page is about the program, it should be about the coins themselves (now when I say that, I don't mean individual articles for each coin, but the series of coins). It's the coins themselves that most people would want to read about. There is a difference between a "program" and a "series": In this case, the series is all the coin varieties, while the program includes the series and all associated special numismatic products intended to promote the series (for examples of such products from the Presidential $1 Coin Program, see [1]). - ZLEA T\C 23:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe PCGS is using the trademarked capitalization for the coin's name. According to WP:TITLETM, standard capitalization should be used in article titles. - ZLEA T\C 15:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And one should realize that a promoter's site will tend to over-cap. Look instead in books, where "Quarters" is capped when referring to the program by that name, but lowercase (usually) when referring to the quarters. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mysterymanblue: Greetings. You have nominated these images for deletion from Wikimedia Commons, saying that they are not freely usable. But, if that is the case, could the images be uploaded to Wikipedia and included in the article under fair use? And if yes, what licensing should be specified on the image pages on Wikipedia? — Mudwater (Talk) 11:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mudwater: Unfortunately, there is probably not a valid free use rationale to include images of all of the coins. See WP:NFTABLE: "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable...." If there was more, well sourced commentary on the individual designs it might be more justified. Unlike the 50 state quarters and the District of Columbia and United States Territories quarters, the U.S. mint does not have a design use policy for the America the Beautiful quarters. This design use policy (if it existed) would bolster claims of free use for this article.  Mysterymanblue  20:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mysterymanblue: Although I am not familiar with the intricacies of image licensing, to me it seems rather strange, and perhaps unprecedented, that images of some U.S. coins might not be allowed on Wikipedia. Furthermore, although we want to make sure that anyone can copy the contents of Wikipedia articles legally, it's hard to imagine that any harm would be done by including these images here, where they serve a valuable educational purpose. Just my two cents, no pun intended. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mudwater: Honestly, it really grinds my gears to see the mint so heavily relying on contractors that will make its works non-free, registering a few of its copyrights, and always having rights to coin designs assigned to itself (rather than released into the public domain). It just feels like all they are doing is trying to sell collectors' coins at a profit. Who would have guessed that the mint would care so much about money? Perhaps the issue is funding from congress. I don't know. Anyway, I nominated the images for deletion from Commons because "the copyright holder won't care" isn't a valid reason for keeping them there, and a repository of free media ceases to be valuable if the media it contains aren't really free. You're right that the mint probably won't care if the coin images are used on Wikipedia, but that rationale also doesn't seem to carry too much weight over here. See, for example, the Five pounds (British coin) article, which previously had at least a few images in a list format, but then they were deleted for not having a valid fair use rationale. The case of this article's use of images is still subject to community discussion, but precedent and policy does not appear to be on the side of including the non-free images.  Mysterymanblue  21:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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) 01:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mintage quantity differences[edit]

While reading this article, I wondered why quarters (even those issues in the same year) have different mintage quantities. For example, in 2013 there were 100 million Ohio coins vs 500+ million South Dakota coins. Anyone have a reliable source they could add to the article to explain this? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBatty The circulation varieties of the coins weren't produced simultaneously. Instead, only one design was produced at a time, with production of one design ending and another one starting every 73 days or so. Furthermore, circulation coins are produced as the demand for them requires. Therefore, it was not uncommon for one design to be produced in a time of high demand but the next design to be produced during a much slower period.
Non-circulation coins (such as uncirculated and proof quality coins) are a different story. Since they were produced simultaneously for sale in sets, they usually have identical mintage figures. It should be noted, however, that starting with the ATB program, additional sets containing coins from one state were also sold, meaning that even the non-circulating issues had differing mintage figures.
I'm afraid I don't have any sources for what I said above, most of it is my own original research and observations of the US Mint store. I don't think it needs to be added to the article since coinage demand doesn't really have much to do with the ATB quarter itself. Unless demand has created some real rarities (below a few million circulation strikes for modern coins), I don't think the effect of demand on coinage is notable enough for inclusion in coin articles. - ZLEA T\C 05:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are missing a lot from 2021[edit]

I don't know how to add tho Editing Person the 1'st (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America_the_Beautiful_quarters&oldid=1198560758"