Talk:Demand Note

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Demand Note is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 26, 2006.
Article Milestones Date Process Result April 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Business and Economics Portal This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
FA	rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Socsci.

Contents 1 older entries 2 Tag? 3 Capitals 4 Shabby pictures, no ext. links 5 Other Demand Notes 6 Better phrasing 7 Indian Currency 8 Main image

[edit] older entries

This article is my homage to the deletionists that didn't seem too concerned about helping someone new to Wikipedia but rather deleting for the sake of deleting multiple times. However, whoever it was that eventually did help me, I give my thanks. --Kurt 01:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag?

Isn't there supposed to be a tag on the article page to identify it as a featured article? Ifnord 00:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

See my comment on your talk page. Schutz 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Got it. But I'm wondering why the article has no star on the top right corner nor does it appear to be in the featured article category. Ifnord 00:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The talk page is in the category, not the article; as for the FA star, I can see it; it may depend on your skin, though. You should maybe have a look at other featured articles to see if it works for you, or change your configuration. Schutz 00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitals

Why is "Demand Note" capitalised? Rich Farmbrough 08:47 26 May 2006 (UTC).

Because it is a proper noun --Kurt 09:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a proper noun. "I have in my hand a demand note." "I have in my hand the Star of India." Rich Farmbrough 09:37 26 May 2006 (UTC).

It isn't. See wiktionary:demand_note and [1]. What a large mistake. —Michiel Sikma, 09:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The demand note that Michiel linked to isn't the same one as this artilce refers to. The article is about the Demand Note, a specific type of paper money used my the US, not just a general notice of debt. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 10:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you meant by that statement, Rich, but I'm assuming it's the matter of two common words becoming a proper noun. E.G., niether "times" nor "square" is a proper noun, but when put together the words describe a specific place, Times Square. In a Demand Note's case, it's a specific, unique object being entitled. --Kurt 11:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That would imply there was only one Demand Note. If there was a single denomination, perhaps the point could be stretched , as per "The design of the Penny Black was unusual.", compared with "I have a penny black in my collection." But there are several demand notes, the 5$, 10$ etc.. Rich Farmbrough 13:27 26 May 2006 (UTC).

There is no limit, however, on the number of objects,things,etc. that can exist for the word describing it to be considered a proper noun (i.e. Founding Fathers). --Kurt 13:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

See also here. Rich Farmbrough 11:00 26 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Shabby pictures, no ext. links

I think that the pictures in this article are ugly. They're edited images of demand notes with text on them. The font that's used is awful, and there are effects on it that I certainly don't agree with. I'd be glad to fix them up a little, but it makes me wonder why an article like this is promoted to featured. Whatever happened to concise and unedited use of images? This is just visual bloat to me. This article also contains no external links. That's not exactly a prerequisite to be a featured article, but I've come to expect featured articles to have lots of tips for further research. —Michiel Sikma, 09:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Which pictures are you talking about. The first one? That helps show the different denominations of Demand Notes. The only other one would be the "for the" picture, but that's probably the best way of showing that. All of the other pictures are unedited. As for the external links, you must have missed the reference section, where there is 4 of them. External links don't have to have their own section to be in an article. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 10:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This article got to featured status on the strength of two "support" votes. While I don't challenge the quality of the article, I do think the process seems a bit flawed. Rich Farmbrough 13:39 26 May 2006 (UTC).

The lack of attention to voting this article to a FAC was mainly due to distraction from the war over the lead section picture. However, the main idea of promoting an article is that consensus is reached, not that a certain number of votes are cast. --Kurt 14:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be heavily critical of this article, because it is good and interesting, and with some work could easily become one of Wikipedia's best articles, but for now it is not IMHO of featured standard. From the FAL it seems only two people actually supported it, so rather than a consensus being reached it looks like the argument over image usage has allowed you to slip through the back door. Well, whatever, but things that I feel need attention are: the use of sub-sectioning in pre-issuance and post-issuance... I don't even understand what's going on there - why aren't they double = subjects? And, as mentioned above, you must provide some external links - Wikipedia should be a vehicle for people to improve their knowledge in a basic way (reading intros), an intermediate way (reading a whole article) or to try to gain thorough knowledge of a subject (by reading an article and then following up via external links). All IMHO of course! SteveRwanda 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't understand what you don't understand (and what do you mean by double = subjects?)

2. Featured articles are either:

• Supported - a user feels nothing needs to be changed and thus the article is ok to progress to a featured article status
• Opposed - a user feels there is something that needs to be changed before the article can progress to a featured article status

I addressed all of the issues that were brought up against it (thus concensus). It's not based on votes (see: what wikipedia is not: democracy) but rather the quality of the article.

3. Regarding external links, read the 2nd paragraph of this discussion section

--Kurt 23:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Demand Notes

Is it worth a mention in the article that demand notes are/have been used elsewhere in the world (e.g. Scotland)? Andy 11:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate in this article because it refers specifically to Demand Notes issued by the U.S. gov't. However, it would be worth mentioning them in their own article. --Kurt 11:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

A "hat note" might be appropriate. Rich Farmbrough 12:26 26 May 2006 (UTC).

Huh huh ;) --Kurt 13:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Most often, "demand note" refers to any promissory note that is payable on demand. As such, they constitute one of the most frequently-used financial instruments in the world, and are probably worth an article, since there is significant case law concerning tehm. Ultimately either that subject or a dab page should be the article under this name. At that point this article should probably be renamed "Demand note (United States Currency)" or some such. No harm until someone gets around to writing the more general article, though. The term is also used colloquially by LE to refer to a note passed by a bank robber to a teller demanding money. Whether this is dark humor is beyond my knowledge. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better phrasing

"Demand Notes not of the most common types usually do not have a price affixed to them and sell at auction prices;" - I can see what's being got at here but perhaps something like "Apart from the most common types, Demand Notes usually sell at auction, rather than being offered at a fixed price;" - "rather than being offered at a fixed price" could be removed if it's seen as redundant giving "Apart from the most common types, Demand Notes usually sell at auction;". Perhaps there's a better phrasing? Rich Farmbrough 13:35 26 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Indian Currency

The Indian Currency is a Demand NoteDoctor Bruno 14:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So too are English banknotes saying I PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF and then the value of the note. It does not count for much now, unless you simply want to change a worn note for a clean one. --Henrygb 23:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main image

The main image used in this article doesn't really seem like it belongs in an encyclopedia. More like an advertisement in a philately numismatics magazine.--Theodore Kloba 19:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Another opinion: I think that it is great, as it gives a visual reference of what is being described in the article. I found that I consulted it several times as I read the text. It also adds color, which is never a bad thing in my view. Sunray 22:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been debated to death. The main reason for the image is that it sumarizes the information of the article without being extremely repetative of the images contained in the body of the article. Also philately deals with stamp but numismatics deals with money. --Kurt 22:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it was debated, but being a featured article draws in new eyes. I think the content of the image is great, but the graphical style (script lettering, flag background, drop-shadowed vignettes, etc.) just doesn't seem to fit. (Terminology in my previous comment corrected.) --Theodore Kloba 20:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)