Talk:Shooting thaler

	Shooting thaler is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on July 7, 2014.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 14, 2010 Featured list candidate Not promoted January 19, 2011 Featured list candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured list

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

Numismatics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies 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.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Switzerland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland 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.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Should this article be added to the Numismatics portal?-RHM22 (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other points:

• I find the double column table confusing. I would make it a single column.

• It probably isn't necessary to have the different language version of "Franc". I would simply say Franc.

• All sentences of text should be cited. Since this is a work in progress, it need not happen immediately. Once you build the article, you should have a lede which summarizes the article (and which need not be cited). Again, there is no hurry, the text is too short to justify it.

• I find google books a wonderful resource, and a search showed at least some information on shooting thalers. I only glanced at it. I will look through my personal library and see if I have anything on shooting thalers, though I think it unlikely. If you are an ANA member, you might do well to give their library a call.

• I have placed this on my watchlist and will add advice as seems necessary, or you can drop a line on my talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! I will begin implementing the changes you suggest immediately.

I am an ANA member, but I already own all but one of the major works on shooting thalers, and the one I don't own is now considered to be out of date. My biggest problem is that I don't currently own a Krause SCWC for 1801-1900 for the reference data for the issues from the German states and Vaud. If you have that volume of Krause, the page numbers for those particular issues would be a huge help. If not, I can probably borrow a copy from the ANA or just finally break down and buy one! Anyway, thanks again for helping me to improve my article. I hope to bring it up to standards soon.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me check my bookshelves, I may have one, though a few years old. I have no trouble with what you have done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the 1996 edition of Krause:

Page 1003:

• 1855 Solothurn; S3
• 1857 Bern: S4
• 1859 Zurich: S5
• 1861 Stans in Nidwalden: S6
• 1863 Le-Chaux-De-Fonds in Neuchatel: S7
• 1865 Schaffhausen: S8
• 1867 Schwyz: S9

Page 1004:

• 1869 Zug: S10
• 1872 Zurich: S11
• 1874 St. Gallen: S12
• 1876 Lausanne: S13
• 1879 Basel: S14
• 1881 Fribourg: S15
• 1883 Lugano: S16
• 1885 Bern: S17

Hope this helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you said German States and Vaud. I will see what I can find out. It would help if you said which German states.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only Vaud shooting thaler issue is on page 999, the 1845. It is listed as KM#22.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind, I see you said in the article. For Baden, the 1863 is KM 247 (Mannheim) and the 1867 (Karlsruhe) is KM 249, both listed on page 355.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bremen, the 1865 B is KM 248, listed on page 373. Frankfurt the 1862 is KM 371, listed on page 383. I don't see one in the Hannover listings.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wehwalt! That's exactly what I needed. The Hanover isn't listed in Unusual World Coins rather than the regular Krause for some reason. I have UWC, so I was able to find the exact reference for that. I'll update the article with this new information right away. Do you think I should include KM numbers for all the issues or would that be too much? Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KM numbers are widely used. No harm in including them.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good. I'll add them to the 19th century issues tonight and I'll update the rest tomorrow.

Since I'm on the subject, do you have any idea what the first two KM 'S' numbers are, or even if they're anything at all? Solothurn is the first confederation issue, and the three cantonal issues all have regular KM numbers. Krause can be very confusing. A few German collectors that I've written to have told me that they have a reference for world coins that's much simpler than Krause called Schön. They should print one of those in English.-RHM22 (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the 1842 and 1847, which preceded Swiss Confederation in 1848, but the numbering retained for historic reasons, though those two coins have regular numbers under the cantonal listings.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that they would leave Zürich out though, especially since the coin was issued post-confederation. Well, at any rate, I have updated the 19th century issues with KM numbers. I'll add them to the rest tomorrow. I'm considering expanding the "other countries" section a little, though I don't want it to take away from the main article since only the coins listed in the main article are actually considered shooting thalers.-RHM22 (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) the ones in Germany were actually thaler pieces, which are considerably smaller than the 5 franc pieces the Swiss used.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the German 3 mark (I think it was the 3 mark) piece was known for years as a thaler colloquially. Actual thalers were considerably larger than those, so I'm not sure how they got that name. I don't have any actual thalers, but I believe the size was somewhere around 40mm on average. I'm not sure why the large Swiss 5 franc pieces were known as thalers. The nickname really only persists today in the phrase "shooting thaler", even among collectors. I suppose it just sounds better than "shooting festival 5 francs".-RHM22 (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this article be renamed "Shooting thaler". I don't think Shooting Thaler is actually a proper noun. If you want me to do it, I'll wave my magic wand.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds fine to me. When I created the article, I thought that all the words in the title had to be capitalized. Should I change the titles of all the headlines to reflect the change to the title?-RHM22 (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will change it in a moment. Per the Manual of Style, however, generally the name of the article should not appear in a section heading. If it is the most effective way of doing it, though, you can certainly leave it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'll be just as effective without "shooting thaler" in the headings. I removed them and replaced "shooting thalers" with "issues". It should get the point across just as well.-RHM22 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the redirect pages don't seem to work anymore. Is there any way I can change them so they redirect to the new page?-RHM22 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a bot that comes through and fixes it, but I just did it manually.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I think the article is looking pretty good so far. What do you think of the photos? I wasn't sure which was the best way to display them.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're fine. Where did they come from?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got permission from another collector in Switzerland named Marcel. The 1939 Lucerne is from my personal collection, but all the others are from Marcel. I forwarded the permission e-mail to Commons, but I guess they haven't approved them yet because the "OTRS pending" tag is still on them. I had to ask a Commons expert named Elcobbola how to add them correctly.-RHM22 (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is good. I often consult with Elcobbola myself about image matters. It is good. There is no hurry.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done just about everything I can do with the article, aside from some minor stuff such as adding KM numbers for 20th and 21st century issues and adding a little information to the "other countries" section. Is there anything else besides those things that you can recommend to add?-RHM22 (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give sourced information on why, for example, the pieces were not struck for many years?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the huge gaps between 1885 and 1934 and 1939 and 1984? I think I could probably find some sourced information of the latter in the Delbert Krause book. The reason for the large gap there was because of WWII. As for the huge 1885-1934 gap, I'm not sure if I've ever actually heard of a reason why. I'll check my books.-RHM22 (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the later gap, that sounds good.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, information about the gap in mintages has been added. I checked, and I didn't see any references anywhere about the gap between 1885 and 1934, but I suppose that's not important. It is interesting, though.-RHM22 (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be worth checking to see if shooting festivals were held during the gap years. Beautiful images you got there, well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The images came from www.zumbo.ch. The shooting festivals were definitely held during the gap years. Medals were minted during every shooting festival since 1824 (as far as I am aware). The Wikipedia Schützenfest article has some dates listed.-RHM22 (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at it. Are you sure that "free shoot" is the best translation? I might say "open shoot" if what we are talking about is a competition anyone can enter. BTW, I've got Lincoln cent at FAC and Buffalo nickel is proceeding nicely.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure about the actual meaning. "Free shoot" is the literal translation of Freischiessen, but I'm not sure if that's actually what it means. I'll ask Marcel if he can give me a little help on the actual translation of that term.

Nice work on the articles! Hopefully these featured articles will help increase interest in coin-related articles on Wikipedia.-RHM22 (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found the answer. Marcel suggested that "Freischiessen" might mean that the winner would be exempt from taxes for a year. I looked it up, and that definitely appears to be the origin of the word. Here is an article (in German) describing it. Those are the origins of the term as used in Germany. I'd probably assume that it's the same in Switzerland, but Marcel also suggested that it could also be used for a shooting festival in which anyone could participate, or "open shoot".-RHM22 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting, but I would suggest leaving it as is, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished creating the new tables. This time I've included much more information. Obverse, reverse and edge inscriptions and translations have been added, as well as extra information displayed at the bottom of the table if applicable. I wasn't able to find any extra information for some of the issues, so the "Notes:" section was left blank on those. I modeled the new tables off of the list of Belgian Euro commemorative coins.-RHM22 (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was checking this article over and comparing it to the manual of style and I noticed that numbers should be spelled when they can be spelled with one or two syllables. My question is, should I change denominations to match that? I know they should be left alone in translations, but what about in the "Denomination:" sections? for instance, if it says "Denomination: 10 batzen", should it be changed to "Denomination: ten batzen"?-RHM22 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is optional, and changing it as you mention would look rather silly, if you ask me. Also please remember that there should be a non-breaking space (see WP:NBSP between a numeral and a following adjective or noun. So you would do (ignore formatting engaged) 10 [[batzen]] rather than 10 [[batzen]]--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think you're right. It would definitely look stupid to spell a number in a denomination, but I wasn't sure if it was necessary to comply with the MOS. Thanks for letting me know about the NBSP between the numbers and words. I'll change that right away.-RHM22 (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is picky and sometimes obscure. You might want to look at WP:DASH, I haven't checked that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking. I changed all the incorrect hyphens to dashes. I didn't know there was a difference.-RHM22 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did I when I started ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't important, but how do I get the article assessed for quality in the Wikiproject:Numismatics box above?-RHM22 (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask someone involved in the WikiProject or else wait and it will probably get done eventually. I do not think WikiProject Numismatics is very active. I'm not a member of any WikiProject, but I have 4 of WPN's 10 FAs (and two of the remainder are about British honours!)--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the project not being very active! I just rated the article as "list". The quality scale has only two quality ratings for lists, "list" and "featured list", so I don't think there's any conflict of interest in me giving it a quality rating myself.-RHM22 (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to cause a ruckus while the article is being considered for promotion, but it's partly because of its FLC that I noticed the article and its tables in the first place. Currently, the tables for each thaler are strictly for layout; they don't associate elements in each row with attributes in various columns. We've just got a dozen (or so) items arrayed sort of neatly in some boxes, and we happen to be using a table for that.

In my recent work with music discographies, among other things, I've been trying to get data arranged in more logical ways, in part to satisfy WP:ACCESS (now part of the MoS and so expected for FL and FA candidates). I had a tough time with these coins, although it's easy to see we have some inscriptions, some translations, some images that would seem to fit a tabular arrangement.

But rather than wax verbose, let me just point you to a prototype I worked up using the Glarus coin, so you can compare. It's at User:JohnFromPinckney/Sandbox3. It comes off taking up more space, unfortunately, and there are a few miscellaneous items lumped together in one box (labeled "Diverse", to which I am not strongly attached). However, there is a more logical arrangement in the prototype that even a non-sighted user should readily understand. I've added table code and mark-up that should let screen readers (assistive technology) parse and read the headings and data; the current tables are sure to confuse such readers.

I see that someone has just deleted the level 4 headings which appeared in the TOC, so you can also ignore the hackish <h4 style="visibility:hidden; font-size:1px;">Glarus – 1847</h2> I have in the prototype. Please take a look and see if it offers you anything you'd like to see incorporated in this FLC page. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Thanks for the input on the tables. I agree that it's important that the tables be reformatted to comply with the MOS. It's kind of late here, so I probably won't be able to get back to you until tomorrow. Is it ok if I add a couple of suggestions to your sandbox tomorrow? I have a few ideas to make the article more non-sighted compatible. Thanks again for your interest and suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should add that wikicoding is pretty new to me, so I might be a little slow to the uptake on certain things.-RHM22 (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. It's so late here that it's early. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added a suggestion to your sandbox. I don't know if it's readable by those online text readers, but I think it might be. If not, we can always rework it. Nothing is set in stone.-RHM22 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Two tables, eh? That might be a good way to go. May I point out my concerns about your proposal (not like mine's perfect, but it's easier to see imperfection in other people's work)?

1. You've got "Details" as a heading where I would have expected "Inscription" (this based on the tables currently in the article).
2. The caption format— oops, I was going to say that the caption format of the second tables will cause a conflict because there are already two coins from Bern, and they won't be unique. But if they're not linked from the TOC anymore, that's not such a big deal.
3. The tables I suggested left a space for an edge image, which yours don't. I realize we don't currently have such images, but I don't know that we couldn't some day. I also tried to think about using these tables in other numismatic articles, and in fact, I looked at several to see if there wasn't something more standard on WP already (there must be, right?), but I did not find any such thing. Other tables, yes, but all different.
4. In your two-table format, the upper tables aren't even properly tabular data at all now, since there's no good label to put on the row. Your upper table is just a means of arranging the two images and a bulleted list; there's no row-column relationship. One solution to that would be to change the upper table to use Denomination, Designer, Mintage, etc. as column or row headings somehow. Since it's a separate table, we're freed from trying to squeeze the Inscription/Translation into parallel fields. See my new stab at this. Another approach would be to drop the other table completely. We can put the images off to one side, with a list of some items followed by the table of inscription info, as I tried here.

What do you think of any of that? I have to admit I'm not sure I like any of them anymore; I think I've been looking at them too long. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really like your second new idea. Let me make one small change and then we can implement the new changes if everything looks good to you.-RHM22 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I submitted my second suggestion to you. I just removed the footer on the images. After a little tweaking of the rollover image captions, I think it'll be great if you like it.-RHM22 (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion (and for waiting). I think your last proposal looks good, and if you think so too, we could start putting it into the article. I was a little worried about the loss of information for vision-impaired people when you removed the common caption under the images, but I looked at the HTML source code generated by the MediaWiki software and it's nothing special either way. If you're happier with it out then do leave it out.

So, do you want to start converting it yourself? You're the article nominator, and I don't want to either step on your toes or mess up the nom process. I also happen to be a bit busy, but if you'd rather I did some or all of it, and can wait a bit, I'll be glad to pitch in. Please let me know how you feel about it (and remember you're not forced to implement any changes at all, it was just an idea I had). Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to change the tables. I should easily be able to convert them all. It might take me a little while because I need to add rollover captions. I might ask you to look them over for your opinion after I'm finished, if that's alright. Thanks,-RHM22 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, good luck. (Pedantry: they're not really rollover captions, they're alternate texts for when the images aren't viewable. Internet Explorer misguidedly shows them on hover, but standard-conformant browsers tend to know better.) Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that shows my expirience in that area! I knew "rollover text" wasn't the right phrase, but it's the best I could think of! Thanks for extra info.-RHM22 (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, RHM22, good work (and a lot of it)! I finally made some time to come back to this. I have made some further changes to the latest version in my Sandbox, but I think I'm just going to copy it all right into the article. What I've done (not all of this has to do with tables and accessibility, you'll notice):

• I added level 4 headings to separate the different issues. We had nice captions before each table, but the details before each caption looked like they belonged to the preceding table (for a different issue).
• There was some extra table-row starter mark-up in each table, now deleted.
• I changed the description for Geneva 1851 to 1848, to match the image, on the assumption that the 1851 was a typing error. Please check that I haven't messed up some historical peculiarity.
• I gave the References columns a recommended width rather than a count. Since most of the refs are small, we can specify narrow columns which can adapt depending on users' browsers.
• For the table of 20th- and 21st-century issues, I added scope attributes for WP:ACCESS, and set right-alignment for the Denomination and Mintage columns, centering everything else. The Location column now contains row headings, so by default they get bold, centered text with a heading-ish background. If you don't like the bold and centered aspects they can be easily done away with by adding "plainrowheaders" to the table's class list, which will cause a nice left alignment for that column.
• I also made that table sortable.
• I added alt texts for the two upper images in the intro.
• Links added for Zürich and Sion in intro.
• I made a couple of minor tweaks to capitalization or similar.

I notice, BTW, that the edge inscription for Solothurn is said to include "FREISCHIESEN". That word in German properly has two "S"s, but maybe it was really made with one "S". I can't check as I have no image nor access to the source.

I'm still not totally happy with the translation "free shoot", but I keep forgetting to ask for some verification/clarification. I'll try to remember to ask somebody this weekend.

I hope you like my changes. If you don't, they can be reverted in whole or in part, especially if you poke in the revision history of my Sandbox3 (or just ask me). I think that's it for now. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me! To address a couple of your points:

Spelling of "FREISCHIESEN": I believe this is how it's actually written on the coin. A number of these issues had some weird regional spellings/mistakes. I'll check my references later to be sure it wasn't a mistake on my part.

Translation for "freischiessen": I'm really not positive on the exact translation, or even if one exists. "Free shoot" is a direct translation, meaning that the words "freie" and "schiessen" translate as "free" and "shoot" respectively. I asked the fellow who owns zumbo.ch, and he said that he didn't know of an exact translation. He did say that the winner of the shoots was exempt from taxes, though, if that provides any clue.

Thanks for all your hard work on the article! I hadn't imagined that making the article more accessible involved so much extra wikicoding!-RHM22 (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, nice catch on the Geneva. I had the wrong photo there!-RHM22 (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RHM22 is doing an excellent job on this article and it is going to be a proud addition to the coverage of numismatics here; I'm guessing Morgan dollar will wind up being his first FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wehwalt, for the praise! If Morgan dollar does make FA, that will be a great honor and achievement.-RHM22 (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly you took the image and properly released it, but what about the coin? What's Swiss government policy on copyright of its coin designs? Or does the copyright rest with the canton or city, or the organizers of the Schutzenfest?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! There's a special template to use for official issues of the Swiss government. I added that image very early in my wikipedia editing, so I didn't know about the tag then.-RHM22 (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've nominated this for FL again. Hopefully the reviewers will like it! Thanks again to Wehwalt, JohnFromPinckney and other editors for helping me along on this one. There may be a few minor changes here and there, but I think it looks really good for the most part. This is the first article I created, and my personal favorite.-RHM22 (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shooting thaler. 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/20150402120649/http://www.coinworld.com/numismatic/coins/world/swiss-shooting-taler-available.html to http://www.coinworld.com/numismatic/coins/world/swiss-shooting-taler-available.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227010150/http://www.coinworld.com/insights/swiss-shooting-talers-for-2015-mark-festival-in-wallis--valais--.html to http://www.coinworld.com/insights/swiss-shooting-talers-for-2015-mark-festival-in-wallis--valais--.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The series of CIT coins, especially the ones that were not made for a federal festival, seem off topic to this page. There could be a shooting medal or List of Swiss shooting medals page with a much wider scope, which would include all sorts of much more notable medals struck since the 1820s.

As for the 2020 "shooting thaler", I am not even sure if this was still made by CIT. So far I have been able to establish:

• It is not on offer on the merchandise page of the official lu2020.ch website (perhaps because it has sold out)
• Huguenin is listed as an official partner on the lu2020.ch website
• The 2020 "thaler" was apparently produced at B.H. Mayer's Kunstprägeanstalt GmbH in Munich. It is possible that this is just the manufacturer and the design is still by Huguenin? It seems that CIT never made any coins themselves, they are just a numismatic marketing company?

The 2020 thaler is now on sale for about CHF 140 at various numismatics shops, but it isn't clear how the original distribution worked. It does not appear that it will be on sale at the festival itself, as it only 1,000 pieces were produced, clearly aimed at coin collectors and not intended as a souvenir to be bought by participants. It appears that the 1995 thaler for Thun was still produced in 5,000 pieces and was actually sold at the nominal value of CHF 50.

My current impression is that these CIT "shooting thalers" are mostly a cash grab aimed at (overseas?) coin collectors and have very little to do with the actual shooting festivals. I may be wrong.

--dab (𒁳) 11:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]