Talk:Coins of Ireland

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Numismatics Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Ireland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

If their are no dissenting opinions then I will move this to

This article is about all the coins of Ireland, not just the coins issued by the Republic of Ireland. However, the coins of Ulster are dealt with in a separate article, Coins of Ulster - (Aidan Work 05:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have no problem with a Coins of Ireland article, except in so far as it duplicates this article. Any duplication needs to be removed from the Coins of Ireland article (and inserting a link to this article) and any useful information written into this article. As for the Coins of Ulster (Northern Ireland I assume) that is for a separate article. Djegan 09:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely this article will be kept (it's a valid historical subject, and the Republic of Ireland coinage cannot cover more than that State's coinage).

I would suggest the coin listings be removed and put into a separate article. Such detailed technical information (mainly of interest just to numenists) unnecessarily clutters up the article and displays a clear editorial (to date) bias towards coin collecting.

The Ulster coinage, even if remaining a separate article - should clearly be covered within this article (just as the Republic of Ireland coinage is).

zoney ♣ talk 13:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all counts. Djegan 18:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoney & Djegan, I am a very strong believer in keeping things in sequence.As seen as the Coins of the Republic of Ireland covers a small time period (from 1949), I thought that I had better write an article that covers both periods - Pre-Republican coinage & Republican coinage. Coins of the Republic of Ireland should be merged into this article, not the other way around. - (Aidan Work 06:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Your suggestion either betrays some degree of inexperience in editing here, or an ulterior motive. Coins of the Republic of Ireland is an already quite lengthy article, and the earlier history of coins in Ireland already could do with expansion. With more contributions, it is likely other subarticles will be needed, as the remit of this particular article is quite broad (all coins across history on the island of Ireland).

Furthermore, I think it likely that particular technical details of coin issues will need to be removed to subarticles as well (an attempt could first be made to condense the information in summary tabular form).

zoney ♣ talk 16:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what Zoney has stated

Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 and nor should they - these predecessor states are included otherwise we would create a very artificial and false barrier, see succession of states. Their are many precedents on wikipedia for this. A Coins of Ireland article must only deal with information before the partition of Ireland

and not after.

Djegan 19:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - this is clearly a broad parent article, and should also contain a summary of the Republic of Ireland (or Irish state) article. All time periods should be summarised in this article.

zoney ♣ talk 17:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough for a summary, but just a summary for the IFS/EIRE/ROI; viz a link and brief paragraph.

Djegan 18:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a stab at this. Don't like the idea of it being needed, but still...

1. Republic of Ireland and Euro section was inaccurate beyond belief, and a duplicate of
   Coinage of the Republic of Ireland
   , so just redirect
2. Remove references to coins-that-weren't. NI Ecu's and IRA-issued fundraising "coins" aren't coins
3. Remove general unionist POV about the thing - theres absolutely no need to mention the Twelvth, etc.
4. Totally rewrote intro
5. Put reference to NI's use of UK coinage to the article, it was in the old intro

I still don't like the article as a whole, but it should be a bit better now... --Kiand 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As these are British coins, they should not be included in this article, which is on Irish coinage.

Northern Ireland is on the island of Ireland, Aidan. BTW, you're still banned. --Kiand 06:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if anyone new of the first or one of the first coins issued by Ireland. Could have been during the civil war or when the Republic was created. Please please please give me any information. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbfenian1916 (talk • contribs) 18:49, March 23, 2007 (UTC)

The image

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention? --Red King (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I considered the changes of putting Irish first to be vandalism or Irish nationalist PoV pushing. That's why I was reverting. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I see another new IP/name User:193.200.155.186 has changed it to Irish first. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's neither vandalism nor PoV pushing. Its a factual article about Coins of Ireland, not about Coins of Britain. Placing Irish in the secondary status is simply not supported by the content of the article. If it were the Coins of Britain article, then stating that "British and Irish coins continued to be accepted" &c would meet

WP:NPOV

, the same standard needs to be applied here.

Moreover, I note that you now state that you are reverting edits based on a claimed violation of

WP:NPOV, but there has been no statement to this effect made here on the talk page. If you are claiming that these editors, whoever they may be, are POV-pushing, then please provide evidence in support of that contention. Failing that, one can but presume that you are POV-pushing yourself for your own reasons. Khavakoz (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This article fell under the recently closed ANI report. On that bases, I reverted the reported IPs change. If I was in error? my bad. I've moved on. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly surprising that so many editors jumped in on an article that hadn't been edited for a year before that. The were as many edits in a day as there were in the previous four years. This is a storm in a teacup, anyway. "British and Irish" is not used in the same context here as it is in the other articles that 176.61.55.135 edited, which were mostly about the British and Irish governments working in concert. The old version had one instance of "Irish and British" and one instance of "British and Irish" in the same paragraph; 176.61.55.135 inverted the second one, and then GoodDay flipped the first one. All the hoo-ha could have been avoided by editing the paragraph so it was clearer. I'm going to do that now. Scolaire (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've semi-protected the article due to edit warring. I'm cautioning all editors to seek a consensus here before editing the article with regard to this particular point. I'm taking this step to avoid blocks; however, blocks will be likely should the edit war continue without consensus. Tiderolls 21:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the socking that was occurring, it's good the article is semi-protected. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Tarage (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your evidence of socking accusations, which are obviously directed at me, GoodDay. I would like to make it crystal clear to everyone that I have not, and do not, engage in socking or any underhanded methods. To imply such about me is an insult not only to me but to other editors. 176.61.55.135 (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the words of TideRolls above, it is particularly galling to see that someusers continue their evidence-free claims regarding recent edits. Unless there is evidence of socking, these allegations should be removed and/or GoodDay sanctioned for brigading. Khavakoz (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in this article anymore. Do with this article, as you all please. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you retract your unsubstantiated claims of socking against me, Goodday? 176.61.55.135 (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did not accuse you of socking. I stated that there was socking going on. But if it will make you feel better? I'll retract anyway. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go raibh míle maith agat. Have a great weekend 176.61.55.135 (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be sited on this page and not just linked at the bottom. Turtles33 (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]