text:
User talk:Wik/Archive November 2003

General Government
On General Government: this article is a complete mess, and most of its content is duplicated (more grammatically) at History of Poland (1939-1945). I wanted to delete it but the Polish nationalists won't let me, so now they can take responsibility for it. Adam 07:08, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Richard Neustadt
I can't understand why you keep removing information from Richard Neustadt so it is now protected. Please discuss it on the talk page. You can not continue reverting pages and refusing to discuss your reasons or even giving an edit summary explaining what you are doing. Angela 04:53, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * I only removed Lir's nonsensical wikification of words like died (and thereafter reverted to my version after he reverted; he should know better than to add information during an edit war; he will ultimately have to re-add this information on the basis of my version). Sorry if that is not obvious to you. I note that you're taking sides here, accusing me of reverting when I just made a normal edit and the first to revert was Lir. --Wik 05:05, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * You didn't just delink death; which is arguably quite valid (this is a wiki, wik...); you removed valid information, whole sentences describing aspects of the man's life, removed valid and notable dates; and, for some reason or other, decided that each president's full name should be written out. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I am not taking sides. If I were to do that, I would have taken yours as I don't think words such as 'died' need to be wikified. It doesn't matter who reverted first. There is no reason to continue it, particularly not without discussion. And your first edit to the page did remove information; the 1960 that the book was published. Angela 05:15, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * My fault. Apparently I edited his first version. But the wikification issue remains and this alone would probably have led to the same edit war. So if it doesn't matter who reverted first, and we both continued it, why did you blame me and did not send Lir the same message? --Wik 05:32, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * I did not blame you. Obviously in an edit war, there must be two people at fault. Don't make assumptions about what I did or did not say to Lir. Wikipedia isn't the only place that messages may be conveyed. Angela

Wik seems to think that any change he/she makes to an article are to be cast in stone and unchanged. He reverted me without discussion several times in one article because he "assumed" that I had reveted him, when I hadn't, and yet refused to discuss it. He's very good at making reverts without discussion. RickK 05:11, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * You did revert me, as the history clearly showed, even if you can't explain how that happened (probably the same way it happened to me here: you accidentally edited an old version). --Wik 05:32, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Yes the Wolno redirect was problematic. If you wish to raise such issues with me, I would be grateful if you did it on the correct policy talk page, or on my talk page, rather than just generally sniping at me on VfD. I have moved your off-topic comment to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects and defended the deletion there. Angela 13:48, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Please start using longer and more descriptive summaries in your edits. For example, on Second Industrial Revolution you could have said "remove ungrammatical commas" instead of "rv". Daniel Quinlan 01:46, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

Wik, I think it might be a good idea if you try to avoid articles written by Lir for a while. There's are plenty of other people who can check his work and other articles that you could work on instead. Hopefully this might prevent every new page Lir writes needing to be protected. Do you think you could do that for a while please? Angela 09:17, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm not the problem here. If other people correct his punctuation, Lir will react just the same. Take it up with him. I can edit anyone's articles, and will not make exceptions for those who take it personal when their errors are corrected. Lir will just have to be banned if those edit wars are to be prevented. --Wik 09:43, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * I didn't say you were the problem. I was just suggesting one possible to a problem. It takes two to edit war, so you can hardly call for Lir's banning without calling for your own. On another topic, what was this edit about? Just curious. Angela 12:47, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * It was clearly Lir who was in the wrong on Second Industrial Revolution, not me. So what do you propose? Just ignore his errors? If you are against a ban, then you can't complain about having to protect those pages. About this edit, it seems caius mysteriously put my signature on a comment he wrote, so I corrected it. --Wik 13:11, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Wik for fixing my redirect effort. I implicitly followed the redirect instruction on the edit page, but apparently not implicity enough. Grrr.Moriori 23:57, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I am in the process of reviewing (I would not characterize it as "investigating") 2002 Gujarat violence, the edit history of the article and its talk page, the various comments linked to this page, and the email traffic here, here, here, here, and here (and a few other threads) on the mailing list related to it. Even though the page is unprotected, I would ask all parties involved to hold off editing this article voluntarily until I can offer a few suggestions, which I will do within a few hours. Thanks for your forbearance, BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:49, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

On Goebbels the situation appears to be: The name on his birth certificate was Joseph Göbbels. Before 1933 he used the Joseph spelling, but since Josef is a much more common German form, it was widely used by other people. From 1933 the official spelling of his name was Josef, presumably because it was "more Germanic." That is why the streets were called Dr Josef Goebbels Strasse and not Joseph. In these circumstances it is impossible to say that either form is "correct." Both are correct, depending on the circumstances. You can't argue that the birth certicate form is binding, otherwise you would have to spell his surname Göbbels, which he never did. I would still argue that in an article on Hitler, Josef is "more correct," but I don't care sufficiently to have an argument about it. I apologise for calling you an idiot, although I feel I was justified in being angry that you falsified the German source that I cited. Adam 00:32, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I didn't falsify anything. I cited exactly the source from the URL given in my subsequent summary (and I suspect that your source is just a poor copy of mine, considering that it also misspelled Rheinland). Also my argument does not rest on the birth certificate, but on the preponderance of sources (including specifically German sources) which say Joseph. If he changed the spelling in 1933, I would still like to see what your evidence is for that. Google finds only three distinct references to "Josef Goebbels Strasse", which does not seem statistically relevant. Those figures are more significant:

 * "joseph goebbels" site:de - 5,280
 * "josef goebbels" site:de - 772

 * I don't think this can be explained with ignorance. --Wik 01:24, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I don't care what you think. Adam

 * Fine, as long as you don't revert me. Because if you do, you will have to justify it. --Wik 05:48, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

Can you please read Talk:2002 Gujarat violence and wait until Brian is able to work on this rather than just reverting or it will need to be reprotected. Thanks. Angela 07:41, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I didn't start it. --Wik 07:44, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * Hi Wik -- LibertarianAnarchist apologized to me and said that the editing happened before seeing my note -- "I read your request only after I restored it a couple of times. My apologies." It's taking me longer to read through things than I thought it would, but I will be making some suggestions this morning on a way to proceed. Thanks in advance for being willing to work with me on this. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:24, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As you know, I am currently trying to help resolve the conflicts around Silesia and Görlitz. Please note that I will remain strictly impartial as to content issues but will try to help in the discussion. Methinks it is time to return to debating facts on the talk pages of these two articles and it would be appropriate for you to take part.

As there have been numerous examples of less-than-cooperative behavior around German-Polish matters, I would urge you to remain factual and abstain from each and all personal attacks (which are not allowed on Wikipedia anyway). If this attempt to reach a compromise remains unsuccesful and/or reversion wars are restarted after the protections are lifted, I am rather sure that there will be calls to ban both of you. This is your chance to prove the pessimists wrong. The same message goes to Nico. Good luck. Kosebamse 13:38, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

from Bcorr
NOTE: See bottom of this page for mediation proposal

Dear Wik, i'm not going to play your games of reverting and etc, nor am i going to protect our friend Adolf. But I'm not mistaken, because Adolph is the German spelling. And i know it, because i'm german (among others) :) A honest advice: start making nice contributions and stop anoying ok? With wikilove, Muriel 21:49, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I am sorry, Muriel, but this is not correct. The German spelling includes an F as well (check it with a Google search). -- Baldhur 21:53, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes it is... Adolf can be written with ph in Germany, like Stefan and Stephan and so one and so forth, i am positive, i've seen it and i'm not saying it again. If Wik doe not like it in the article, its OK, but its not "Lir's nonsense". If you like google, check the Google.de... Wikilove to you too, Muriel

 * Other Germans may well be named Adolph, but the spelling of each individual's name is fixed, and Hitler was Adolf, not Adolph. Goebbels, on the other hand, was Joseph, not Josef. It is definitely Lir's nonsense, but if you insist on it it's your nonsense too. --Wik 22:09, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * If you say so... Muriel

Where exactly do you think you get the right to take out the Phil Dick and Tim Leary parts of the Reptilian humanoid article? I gave references. Khranus

 * Where do you think you get the right to revert my spelling correction? I simply reverted. --Wik 05:40, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

 * I didn't revert your spelling correction. I restored the Phil Dick and Tim Leary information that was taken out. Khranus

 * Yes you did. --Wik 05:49, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Lukla, Nepal
Why did redirect Lukla, Nepal to just Lukla? Why shouldn't it be the other way around? RedWolf 03:52, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * See Talk:Lukla, Nepal.

Hey, I don't want to take sides in your edit wars with Lir, but on the other hand, I think it'd be good to lay off of him a bit. In general, I recommend against reverting things with just 'rv' if there's any trouble. Better to look at what the other fellow is doing and try to work with him.

In the case of Impressionism, Lir was rewriting a paragraph and left out some information. You wanted to put it back. But you reverted his paragraph completely, which I think upset him. It might have been better for you to have (a) added the information back while respecting his other edits as much as possible and (b) to step away from the article for at least an hour or two, to see where he was headed with it.

Ahh, I'm not logged in. But, I'm Jimbo. Jimbo Wales 20:18, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * It's impossible to work with Lir, he's just a troll. I give my reason in the first edit summary, then "rv" is sufficient. It's Lir who continues to revert things even when everyone is telling him his version is wrong (just ask Daniel Quinlan about the comma war on Second Industrial Revolution). --Wik 22:06, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * I disagree that it's impossible to work with him, and I do not agree that 'rv' is sufficient. You aren't even trying, take for example Impressionism.  He was making serious edits, and rather than try to accomodate his edits in the least, you just kept reverting.  You wanted to add back some information that he was omitting, which is fine, but you were ALSO reverting the ENTIRETY of his changes, which is completely unfair.  I think you can do better than that.  Jimbo Wales 19:47, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, we just have to disagree then. Why should I repeat the edit summary I gave before? Don't you think maybe he should have accommodated my edit instead of just reverting? I agree my actions on Impressionism could have been unfair if it had been any other user than Lir - but you have to see it in context, he was on a roll of making moronic edits just to seek conflict. For a clear proof of that: he was adding an irrelevant Dutch transliteration of the Russian name of Anton Chekhov and while that edit war was still going on, he did the same thing (adding random foreign transliterations) with Fyodor Dostoevsky and Ivan Turgenev, pointlessly escalating the conflict. He is just back to his old ways. Why did you unban him anyway? Can you please publish his statement that supposedly convinced you he has changed his ways? --Wik 11:39, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for moving my sandbox. Alexandros 00:36, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wik, I have said before that if you wish to raise questions regarding my decision to delete something or regarding my comments on items removed from VfD weeks ago, please address these questions to me directly rather than complaining on VfD. I do not intend to continue an off-topic conversation of the merits of EncycloZine in the middle of a discussion on fwointl. Angela

 * It wasn't a question, just an observation, and not entirely irrelevant to VfD, since people who read your comment may get the impression that there is a strict guideline to delete sites with a low Alexa ranking, which, apparently, there isn't. --Wik 20:38, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

Boyerism
Please see my objections to your repeated use of the inaccurate and vague use of the term "Boyerism," a term you falsely claim to have "coined," on VfD. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:28, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Long discussion with Kosebamse moved to User talk:Wik/Kosebamse discussion

How come you're changing Czechia to the Czech Republic everywhere? I don't see much reason to prefer the longer form in most places. --Shallot 19:59, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * The term "Czechia" is not commonly used in English (Google: Czech Republic - 6,880,000; Czechia - 89,500). Virtually all instances of it on Wikipedia were the result of the crusade of one user (Qertis). --Wik 20:59, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

 * The more formal term has certainly taken roots, but the shorter form is both preferred by the Czechs and quite easily understandable to English speakers, so I don't see any reason to insist on the Republic everywhere. --Shallot 22:18, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Huge cut and paste from conflicts page moved to User talk:Wik/Conflicts

Typo Correction Day

 * thank you for your extremely helpful and active participation in Typo Correction Day --Alexandros 16:16, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wik, I am puzzled by your behaviour in your constant reversions of Lir's edits. I have made it clear that I have enormous respect for your work and abilities. But in reading past reversions I have not seen anything in Lir's edits to justify wholescale reversions. I know you have a belief that Lir is still acting as a troll. I have been severely critical of Lir in the past. I have not seen any major evidence that he is acting that way again. Nor has Mav. Nor have a host of others. Nor has Jimbo. I have not seen a single person justify your reversions. Please Wik, stop acting like this. You are a talented, capable contributor. But you are alienating a lot of people who see constant reversions by you but simply cannot find any justification for it anywhere. There is a real danger that if this continues, you could end up being banned in the belief that you are refusing to work with people and are unfairly targeting one individual in a personalised way with no factual evidence to justify your behaviour. I don't want to see that happen. So as someone who has defended you and has the upmost respect for you, please take my advice and stop the edit wars with Lir before it is too late. The fact that no-one else agrees with your behaviour, and that everyone seems to agree that your reversions are unjustified, should tell you that just maybe on this you are wrong.

And yes, BTW, we all have been wrong, sometimes spectacularly wrong, on occasion, and that includes Mav, 172, Eloquence and even Jimbo. The key to correcting it is sometimes just walk away and don't edit some pages for a while. Then go back to them after two weeks or a month with fresh eyes. The usual response we have all found is, on looking at the past edit wars, a feeling of "oh shit. I really went too far there." There is no problem is making a mistake. The problem is in continuing to make it over and over again when just about everyone, even those with no time for Lir, end up concluding that you are the one behaving wrongly. The sheer number of people telling you to stop should be offering enough warning signs for you to realise that maybe, just maybe, in your emotional attitude towards Lir, you are losing all sense of proportion. What I don't want to see is wikipedia losing you and that is a real danger if you continue acting like this. Best wishes, FearÉIREANN 23:13, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I am puzzled that you are puzzled by it. My reversions have nothing to do with Lir's previous behaviour, or any "emotional attitude". Lir is making errors here and now and I correct them, like I would correct anyone else's errors. The difference is that he never accepts that and starts reverting. What am I to do? If you look at the substance of the disputes, tell me where I'm wrong. Are you disputing that the proper, most precise term for Treblinka etc. is extermination camp, whereas death camp is a wider term that can be used for all kinds of non-Nazi camps too? --Wik 23:34, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

If you see this message soon enough, can you hop in the IRC chat and discuss an issue Lir has with you. It seems a trivial thing about an article naming convention. Dori 18:55, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm not interested in talking to the troll. --Wik 21:03, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * I just thought the situation might be diffused. He seemed to think that you were following him around and reverting most edits he made. oh well, as you wish...by the way, thank you for the nomination a while back. regards Dori 06:51, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

-

Thanks for correcting the spelling of coloration. My spelling isn't normally bad, but I seem to have developed a blind spot for that word. My dictionary does give colouration as a less common alternative, but I won't even pretend that is why I wrote it as I did. jimfbleak

-

Wik! There are over 500 links, that point to Prussia, but consider only Prussian state. Either fix them all, or redirect Prussia to Prussian (state) and try to fix only those who point to Province of Prussia or Prussia (Baltic). The latter are absolute minority. WolfgangPeters

 * Then it would be better to have the article about the state at Prussia to avoid the redirects, and have the disambiguation at Prussia (disambiguation). But it seems User:145.253.32.3 is changing all the links from Prussia to Prussia (state), so I was going along with that. --Wik 16:46, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

 * Do whatever what makes sense.

WolfgangPeters

Please discuss at the relevant page why it should be 2003 U.S.-Canada blackout instead of 2003 U.S.-Canada Blackout. --Jiang

I think seeing your name all over my watchlist to correct the spelling of descendents will teach me the correct spelling. Hooray for Typo Correction Day! Tuf-Kat 07:32, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, the same thing as Tuf-kat. I've been improving my atrocious spelling thanks to you, Wik! Keep on the good work. Is it too much to ask for you to write at lest typo in the summary? All the best, Muriel Victoria 08:39, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, it would take longer, and I already mark those edits as minor. --Wik 12:11, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Wik, I was just looking through the Murray Rothbard changelog, and was curious about why you reverted this edit? -- pde 08:45, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * If you check my previous edit, you'll see that I had just expanded his middle name, and then the other person reverted me, apparently by ignoring an edit conflict, and changed "Newton" to "N." again. --Wik 12:11, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

Can you please leave Richard Neustadt alone? It had been protected for two weeks and then three minutes after I unprotect it you revert it despite the agreement on the talk page that Stan's version was preferred. This sort of behaviour just makes it look like you are purposefully trying to restart an edit war. It is not acceptable. Angela 15:49, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * What agreement? I don't agree, and I demonstrated how my version is in line with the usual practice. --Wik 15:53, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

 * The agreement between Lir, Stan, and myself, Wik. :) Martin 16:56, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Which is more than outweighed by the established practice of Wikipedia that I demonstrated (effectively a 78% vote for my version). --Wik 17:04, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh, I'm sorry. When you asked Angela "What agreement?", I thought you might be asking what agreement she was referring to. Perhaps next time, if you already know the answer to a question, you could refrain from asking it? Just a thought. Martin 17:17, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Yup, Wik will work hard to make sure he gets his way. I wonder how much trouble per-user page protection would be to implement. Stan 16:47, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Nauru Bwiema
The non-English translations of Nauru Bwiema are quite significant because of the Christian missionary presence on Nauru in the early 1900s, during the colonial era. Father Aloys Kayser, a German, is one of the most prominent figures in Nauruan history, and he is the compiler of the only comprehensive grammar of the Nauruan language. I am not sure of the significance of the Spanish version, though. --TwinsFan48

 * But the anthem was adopted in 1968. I don't see what it has to do with the missionaries of the early 1900s or with Kayser's grammar. --Wik 17:05, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)

 * The point is that German influence was heavy, with German missionaries, German architecture and even a period of German colonial domination. I just want the translation to stay for these reasons. --TwinsFan48

If you move something from WP:RfD to VfD, please ensure you do not delete my comments while doing that. Angela 21:44, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wik/Archive November 2003


text:
Dollar coin (United States)

The dollar coin is a United States coin with a face value of one United States dollar. Dollar coins have been minted in the United States in gold, silver, and base metal versions. Dollar coins were first minted in the United States in 1794.

While true gold dollars are no longer minted, the Sacagawea, Presidential, and American Innovation dollars are sometimes referred to as golden dollars because of their color. As with several other denominations of U.S. coinage, golden dollars are similar in diameter and color to their Canadian counterpart (known as the "loonie", which predates the Sacagawea dollar by thirteen years). However, unlike the 11-sided Canadian dollar coins, U.S. "golden dollar" coins are round.

Dollar coins have never been popular in circulation since their inception. Despite efforts by the U.S. government to promote their use to save the cost of printing one dollar bills, the Anthony Dollar, the Sacagawea Dollar and the Presidential Dollar Series are all seldom seen in circulation, since most Americans prefer to use the dollar bill. For this reason, since December 11, 2011, the Mint has not produced dollar coins for general circulation, and all dollar coins produced after that date have been specifically for collectors. These collector coins can be ordered directly from the Mint, while pre-2012 circulation dollars can be obtained from most U.S. banks.

Popularity
One-dollar coins, both in silver and base-metal forms, have never been popular in circulation from the 19th century to the present, despite several attempts to increase their usage since the 1970s, for various reasons:
 * From 1792 to 1803 the $1 coin compared favorably with the Spanish dollar and was accepted at par for overseas purchases. Its coinage was suspended in 1803 since it did not remain long in domestic circulation.
 * During the 1850s California gold rush the silver dollar of 371.25 gr was internationally worth more than the gold dollar of 23.22 gr and was therefore exported (see Gresham's law). Likewise, the gold dollar of 1849–1889 was a tiny coin measuring only 13 - 15 mm in diameter, making it difficult to grasp and easy to lose, a serious problem when one dollar was about a day's wage.
 * While substantial numbers of silver Morgan dollars were minted from 1878 pursuant to the Bland-Allison Act, there also existed an option to hold silver certificates fully backed by silver dollars kept in reserves. The majority of citizens, therefore, opted to use silver certificates while most silver dollars languished inside treasury and bank vaults.

Succeeding base-metal $1 coins minted from 1971 onwards did not circulate widely as well, the most important reason being the continued circulation of the $1 bill.
 * The copper-nickel clad Eisenhower dollar minted from 1971 to 1978 was not popular due to its large size relative to its gradually diminishing value;
 * The smaller-sized Susan B. Anthony dollar coin minted from 1979 to 1981 and again in 1999, was highly unpopular because they were often mistaken for quarters, due to their nearly equal size, color and reeded edge;
 * Sacagawea dollars and Presidential dollar coins have been issued since 2000. These coins have a distinct weight, gold color, and smooth edge. Despite these remedies, golden dollars continue to circulate poorly since the $1 bill continues to be produced.

The non-acceptance of $1 coins in the United States contrasts with the practice in most other developed countries where denominations of similar value exist only in coins; for example, the lowest-value pound sterling, euro and Japanese yen notes are the £5 note, €5 note and 1000 yen note respectively; each is worth more than US$5. These high-value coins (such as the €2 coin, Canadian "toonie" or 5 Swiss francs) have largely succeeded because of the removal (or lack) of their corresponding paper issues, whereas the U.S. government has taken no action to remove the $1 bill. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has stated that discontinuing the dollar bill in favor of the dollar coin would save the U.S. government approximately US$5.5 billion over thirty years primarily through seigniorage. The Federal Reserve has refused to order the coin from the mint for distribution citing a lack of demand, according to ex-Mint director Philip Diehl in November 2012.

Whatever the reason, a U.S. Mint official claimed in a November 2012 meeting that most of the 2.4 billion dollar coins minted in the previous five years were not in circulation.

In 2019, the GAO re-estimated the cost of replacing the $1 bill and found for the first time that it would cause the government to lose between US$611 million and US$2.6 billion because physical money was being used less, resulting in dollar bills remaining in circulation longer compared to the 2011 analysis.

Mint marks
The list below is of all mint marks used on the dollar coin:
 * C: Charlotte, North Carolina (gold coins only; 1838–1861).
 * CC: Carson City, Nevada (1870–1893).
 * D: Dahlonega, Georgia (gold coins only; 1838–1861).
 * D: Denver, Colorado (1906 to date).
 * O: New Orleans, Louisiana (1838–1861; 1879–1909).
 * P: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (produced from 1793 to date, mint mark introduced in 1979).
 * S: San Francisco, California (1854 to date).
 * W: West Point, New York (1984 to date).

Early dollar coins
Before the American Revolutionary War, coins from many European nations circulated freely in the American colonies, as did coinage issued by the various colonies. Chief among these were the Spanish silver dollar coins (also called pieces of eight or eight reales) minted in Mexico and other colonies with silver mined from North, Central and South American mines. These coins, along with others of similar size and value, were in use throughout the colonies, and later the United States, and were legal tender until 1857.

In 1776, several thousand pewter Continental Currency coins were minted. Although unconfirmed, many numismatists believe these to have been pattern coins of a proposed silver dollar coin authorized by the Continental Congress to prop up the rapidly failing Continental Currency—the first attempt by the fledgling U.S. at paper currency. Several examples were also struck in brass and silver, but a circulating coin was not produced, in large part because of the financial difficulties of running the Revolutionary War. The Continental Currency dollar coin bears the date 1776, and while its true denomination is not known, it is generally the size of later dollars, and the name has stuck. The failure of the Continental Currency exacerbated a distrust of paper money among both politicians and the population at large. The letters of Thomas Jefferson indicate that he wished the United States to eschew paper money and instead mint coins of similar perceived value and worth to those foreign coins circulating at the time.

The Coinage Act of 1792 authorized the production of dollar coins from silver. The United States Mint produced silver dollar coins from 1794 to 1803, then ceased regular production of silver dollars until 1836. The first silver dollars, precisely 1,758 of them, were coined on October 15, 1794, and were immediately delivered to Mint Director David Rittenhouse for distribution to dignitaries as souvenirs. Thereafter, until 1804, they were struck in varying quantities. There are two obverse designs: Flowing Hair (1794–1795) and Draped Bust (1795–1804). There are also two reverse designs used for the Draped Bust variety: small eagle (1795–1798) and heraldic eagle (1798–1804). Original silver dollars from this period are highly prized by coin collectors and are exceptionally valuable, and range from fairly common to incredibly rare. Because of the early practice of hand engraving each die, there are dozens of varieties known for all dates between 1795 and 1803.

It is also one of only two denominations (the other being the cent) minted every year from its inception during the first decade of mint operation. Though a new Spanish dollar or 8-real minted after 1772 theoretically contained 417.7 grains of silver of fineness 130/144 (or 377.1 grains fine silver), reliable assays of the period confirmed a fine silver content of 370.95 gr for the average Spanish dollar in circulation. The new US silver dollar of 371.25 gr therefore compared favorably and was received at par with the Spanish dollar for foreign payments, and in 1803 President Thomas Jefferson halted new silver dollars made out of the US Mint's limited resources since it failed to stay in domestic circulation. The less-exportable half dollar therefore became the largest US-made silver coin in domestic use for the next several decades. It was only after Mexican independence in 1821 when their peso's fine silver content of 377.1 grains was firmly upheld, which the US later had to compete with using a heavier Trade dollar coin of 378.0 gr fine silver.

The 1804 dollar
The 1804 dollar is one of the rarest and most famous coins in the world. Its creation was the result of a simple bookkeeping error, but its status as a highly prized rarity has been established for nearly a century and a half. The silver dollars reported by the mint as being struck in 1804 were dated 1803. (With die steel being very expensive in the early 19th century, dies were used until they were no longer in working condition. This is why many early U.S. coins exhibit various kinds of die cracks, occlusions, cuds, clash marks, and other late-state die wear. Nearly every coin the U.S. struck from 1793 to 1825 has an example that was struck in a year other than that which it bears.) No dollars bearing the date 1804 were ever struck in 1804, though this was unknown to mint officials at the time the 1804 dollar came to be.

The 1804 silver dollar was actually produced in 1834, when the U.S. Department of State decided to produce a set of U.S. coins to be used as gifts to rulers in Asia in exchange for trade advantages. Since 1804 was the last recorded year of mintage for both the dollar and $10 Eagle, it was decided that the set would contain examples of those coins dated 1804, as well as the other denominations currently being produced. Mint officials, not realizing that the 19,000+ dollars recorded as being produced in 1804 were all dated 1803, proceeded to make new dies bearing the date 1804. Only 15 silver dollars with the date of 1804 are known to exist; in 1999, one of them sold at auction for more than $4 million. There are 8 Class I dollars, struck in 1834 for the aforementioned sets, 1 Class II dollar, struck over an 1857 Swiss Shooting Thaler (and now residing in the U.S. Coin Collection at the Smithsonian Institution), and 6 Class III dollars, struck surreptitiously sometime between 1858 and 1860 to meet collector demand for the coin.

Seated Liberty dollar (1836–1873)
Seated Liberty dollars were introduced in 1836 and were minted in lesser quantities than the sparsely minted Gobrecht dollar that preceded it. The dollars were used in general circulation until 1873. The production of large numbers of U.S. gold coins (The first $1 and $20 gold coins were minted in 1849) from the new California mines lowered the price of gold, thereby increasing the value of silver. By 1853, the value of a U.S. silver dollar contained in gold terms, $1.04 of silver, equal to $ today. With the Mint Act of 1853, all U.S. silver coins, except for the U.S. silver dollar and new 3-cent coin, were reduced by 6.9% as of weight with arrows on the date to denote reduction. The U.S. silver dollar continued to be minted in very small numbers mainly as a foreign trade coin with the Orient.

The international trading partners did not like the fact that U.S. coins were reduced in weight. The use of much more common half dollars became problematic since merchants would have to separate higher value pre-1853 coins from the newer reduced ones. From 1853 onward, trade with Asia was typically done with Mexican coins that kept their weight and purity in the 19th century. This ended in 1874 when the price of silver dropped so that a silver dollar had less than $1.00 worth of silver in it (because of huge amounts of silver coming from the Nevada Comstock Lode mines). By 1876, all silver coins were being used as money and by 1878, gold was at par with all U.S. paper dollars. Beginning in 1878, huge amounts of the Morgan silver dollars were produced but few were used as money. The size was too large to carry on business so Silver Certificates were used instead. The mint made the coins, placed them in their vaults, and issued the Silver Certificates instead. This is the reason so many Morgan and Peace dollars can be purchased in AU or UNC condition (near perfect) since they sat in bank or U.S. Treasury vaults most of the time.

Each Seated Liberty dollar is composed of 0.77344 troy oz of silver. They were minted at Philadelphia, New Orleans, Carson City, and San Francisco. A silver dollar would be worth $1 in silver if the price of silver is US$1.29 per troy ounce. The current silver price (January 29, 2021) is US$27.03 per troy ounce so a silver dollar is worth, in melt value of about US$20.90.

Gold dollar coins (1849–1889)
The gold dollar was produced from 1849 to 1889. 1849 to 1853 gold dollar coins were 13 mm across and are called Type I. Type II gold dollars were thinner but larger at 15 mm diameter and were produced from 1854 to 1855. The most common gold dollar is the Type III, struck from 1856 until 1889. Production of US$1 gold dollars was high until the Civil War and by 1863, only the larger value gold coins were produced in large quantities. Most gold coins produced from 1863 and onward were produced for imports to pay for enormous amounts of war material and interest on some U.S. Government bonds. Many of these coins from the Civil War and after (silver coins included) are in excellent condition since they saw very limited circulation with greenbacks and postage currency taking their place.

Composed of 90% pure gold, it was the smallest denomination of gold currency ever produced by the United States federal government. When the U.S. system of coinage was originally designed there had been no plans for a gold dollar coin, but in the late 1840s, two gold rushes later, Congress was looking to expand the use of gold in the country's currency. The gold dollar was authorized by the Act of March 3, 1849, and the Liberty Head type began circulating soon afterward. Because of the high value of gold, the gold dollar is the smallest coin in the history of U.S. coinage.

Trade dollar (1873–1885)
The trade dollar was produced in response to other Western powers, such as Great Britain, Spain, France, and particularly Mexico, to compete with these trade coins for use in trade in Asia. While the previous Spanish dollar of 370.95 gr contained less fine silver than the standard dollar coin of 371.25 gr, Mexican pesos minted after Mexican independence contained a full 377.1 gr of fine silver. The American trade dollar therefore had to contain more silver, at 420 grains of 90% fine silver, fine content 378.0 gr, or 0.44 g more fine silver than the regular circulation Seated Liberty Dollars and Morgan Dollars. Most trade dollars ended up in China during their first two years of production, where they were very successful. Many of them exhibit holes or chopmarks which are counterstamps from Asian merchants to verify the authenticity of the coins. Many trade coins of the western powers and large silver coins from China, Korea, and Japan also bear these chopmarks. While most chopmarked coins are generally worth less than those without, some of the more fascinating chopmarks can give the coin a modest premium.

Trade dollars did not circulate in the United States initially, but were legal tender for up to US$5. Things changed, however, in 1876, when the price of silver spiraled downward as western producers dumped silver on the market, making the trade dollar worth more at face value than its silver content. That resulted in trade dollars pouring back into the United States, as they were bought for as little as the equivalent of 80 US cents in Asia, and were then spent at US$1 in the United States. This prompted Congress to revoke their legal tender status, and restrict their coinage to exportation demand only. However, this did not stop unscrupulous persons from buying trade dollars at bullion value, and using them for payment as US$1 to unsuspecting workers and merchants.

Production of the trade dollar was officially discontinued for business strikes in 1878, and thereafter from 1879 to 1885, produced only as proof examples of the coin. The issues of 1884 and 1885 were produced surreptitiously and were unknown to the collecting public until 1908.

In February 1887, all non-mutilated, non-chopmarked outstanding trade dollars were made redeemable to the United States Treasury for US$1, and approximately 8 million of them were turned in.

Morgan dollar (1878–1904, 1921, 2021-present)
Morgan silver dollars, all composed of 90% silver and 10% copper (slightly less silver than sterling silver, 92.5%) containing 26.73 g of pure silver, were struck between 1878 and 1904, with a minting in 1921 and a commemorative minting in 2021. The 1921-dated coins are the most common, and there exists a substantial collector market for pristine, uncirculated specimens of the rarer dates and mint marks. Morgan dollars are second only to Lincoln Cents in collector popularity. The coin is named after George T. Morgan, its designer. Morgan dollars were minted at Philadelphia (no mint mark), New Orleans ("O" mint mark), San Francisco ("S" mint mark), Carson City ("CC" mint mark), and (in 1921 only) Denver ("D" mint mark). The mint mark is found on the reverse below the wreath, above the "O" in "DOLLAR". Production of the Morgan Dollar began again in 2021 and US Mint officials announced an intention to continue producing them in 2023 and beyond.

Peace dollar (1921–1928, 1934–1935, 2021-present)
Introduced in December 1921 and having the same ratio of silver-to-copper as the Morgan dollar, the Peace dollar, designed by medalist Anthony de Francisci, was promulgated to commemorate the signing of formal peace treaties between the Allied forces and Germany and Austria. These treaties officially ended the Allies' World War I hostilities with these two countries. In 1922 the Mint made silver dollar production its top priority, causing other denominations to be produced sparingly if at all that year. Production ceased temporarily after 1928; original plans called for only a one-year suspension, but this was extended by the Great Depression. Mintage resumed in 1934, but for only two years.

In May 1965, 316,000+ Peace dollars were minted, all at the Denver Mint and dated 1964-D; however, plans for completing this coinage were abandoned, and most of those already minted were melted, with two known trial strike specimens being preserved (for assay purposes) until 1970, when they too were melted, and none released either for circulation or collection purposes. It is rumored that one or more pieces still exist, most notably any examples obtained by key members of Congress, the president, or mint officials. However, this coin, much like the 1933 $20 gold double eagle (aside from the "exception", sold in 2002 for over $7 million and the 10 found later), is illegal to own and would be subject to confiscation.

Minting of the Peace Dollar began again in 2021. US Mint officials have announced an intention to continue minting Peace Dollars in 2023 and beyond.

Release of dollars by the U.S. Treasury: the GSA sale
Because of the size and weight of the dollar coins, they circulated minimally throughout their history, except in the West (especially at casinos in the early-to-mid-20th century, where they were commonly used both at the tables and at slot machines.) As a result, the coins were generally shipped to Washington and stored in the vaults of the U.S. Treasury; at times these stores numbered into the hundreds of millions.

They were very popular as Christmas gifts, however, and from the 1930s to the early 1960s, many bags were annually released to banks nationwide to be distributed as presents. In November 1962, during this annual distribution, it was discovered that there were some rare and valuable dates, still sealed in their original mint bags, all in uncirculated condition, among the millions of dollar coins still in the Treasury vaults. Collectors/investors/dealers lined up to purchase them in $1,000 bags, trading silver certificates for the coins. Before this event, the great rarity of the Morgan series was 1903-O, which was by far the most expensive of the entire set. It was discovered that there were millions of this specific date and mint in the Treasury vaults; an estimated 84% of the entire mintage sat in these bags, untouched for 60 years, all in uncirculated condition. While still relatively expensive in circulated grades, uncirculated examples can be had for a modest amount over common dates.

On March 25, 1964, Secretary of the Treasury C. Douglas Dillon announced that Silver Certificates would no longer be redeemable for silver dollars. Subsequently, another act of Congress dated June 24, 1967, provided that Silver Certificates could be exchanged for silver bullion for a period of one year, until June 24, 1968.

Following this, the Treasury inventoried its remaining stock of dollar coins and found approximately 3,000 bags containing 3 million coins. Many of the remaining coins were Carson City mint dollars, which even then carried a premium. The coins were placed in special hard plastic holders and the General Services Administration (GSA) was given authorization to sell them to the public in a series of mail-bid sales. Five sales were conducted in 1973 and 1974, but sales were poor, and the results unspectacular. There was much complaining among the coin-buying public, many stating that the United States government should not be in the "coin business", especially considering that the government had spent little more than a dollar to mint and store each coin. After these sales, more than a million coins were still left unsold.

These sat again until 1979–1980, where, amidst an extraordinarily volatile precious metals market (the attempt by the 3 Hunt brothers to corner the silver market), the remaining coins were sold under chaotic conditions. The GSA, having published minimum bids in November 1979, announced on January 2, 1980, that those minimum bids were no longer valid, and that prospective bidders would have to "call in" to a toll-free number to get current minimum bids. Then, on February 21, 13 days after the bidding process officially began, the maximum number of coins per bidder was changed from 500 to 35. Many bidders, under these confusing conditions, ended up with no coins at all. Complaints again flooded into Congress, but the damage had already been done, and the last silver dollars held by the United States Treasury were gone.

Over the years, many of these GSA dollars have been broken out of their special holders for purposes of grading or otherwise, and now GSA dollars still in the unbroken original holders carry a small premium. Some third-party grading companies have begun to grade coins still in their GSA holders, as a means of preservation, though this is not without controversy.

Eisenhower dollar (1971–1978)
From 1971 to 1978, the U.S. Mint issued dollar coins with the obverse depicting President Dwight David Eisenhower and the reverse the insignia of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, both designed by Chief Engraver Frank Gasparro. The 1976 Bicentennial commemorative design, produced in 1975 and 1976, featured the Liberty Bell and the Moon on the reverse (designed by Dennis R. Williams) while retaining the Eisenhower obverse, and the dual dates 1776–1976. The Eisenhower dollars minted for general circulation contained no silver or gold but were instead composed of the same copper-nickel clad composition used for the dime, quarter, and half dollar. This made the circulation coins extremely resistant to wear and, like the smaller denominations, they still retain a good deal of shine even when subject to mass usage.

From 1971 through 1976, the Mint also produced dollars composed of 40% silver aimed at the collector market. The 1971–1974 issues appeared in brown boxes or blue packages, depending on whether they were proof or uncirculated. Somewhat different Bicentennial sets were produced in the following two years. All issues remain very common.

The coins were never very popular, primarily because of their large size and weight which made them inconvenient to carry, and the fact that very few vending machines were designed to accept them. They saw the greatest use in casinos, and one-dollar tokens in many United States casinos still approximate the size and weight of the coins. Prior to the withdrawal of the coins, which remain legal tender (and are sometimes available at banks by request), many casinos did not strike their own tokens, but instead used the Eisenhower dollar.

Susan B. Anthony dollar (1979–1981; 1999)

From 1979 to 1981, and again in 1999, the Mint produced Anthony Dollars depicting women's suffrage activist Susan B. Anthony (also designed by Frank Gasparro). Anthony thus became the first historical female person portrayed on circulating U.S. coinage. Many earlier circulating coins had featured images of women via allegorical figures such as Peace or Liberty; Spain's Queen Isabella appeared on the 1893 Columbian Exposition quarter dollar but the coin was not intended for general circulation. The Anthony dollars, like the Eisenhower dollars, were made from a copper-nickel clad. The 1981 coins were issued for collectors only but occasionally show up in circulation.

The Anthony dollar, because of its color, size, and design, was often confused with the quarter. It was never popular and production was suspended after 1981. In 1999, it was struck again when Treasury reserves of the coin were low and the Sacagawea dollar was still a year away from production. While reserves of the coins were high, the coins were most often seen in vending machines, transit systems, and post offices.

American Silver Eagle (1986–present)
The American Silver Eagle is the official silver bullion coin of the United States. It was designed by Adolph A. Weinman and John Mercanti and it was first released by the United States Mint on November 24, 1986. It is struck only in the one troy ounce size, which has a nominal face value of one dollar and is guaranteed to contain one troy ounce of 99.9% pure silver. It is authorized by Title II of Public Law 99-61 (Liberty Coin Act, approved July 9, 1985) and codified as (e)-(h). Its content, weight, and purity are certified by the United States Mint. In addition to the bullion version, the United States Mint has produced a proof version and an uncirculated version for coin collectors. The Silver Eagle has been produced at three mints: the Philadelphia Mint, the San Francisco Mint, and the West Point Mint. The American Silver Eagle bullion coin may be used to fund Individual Retirement Account investments.

Sacagawea dollar (2000–present)
The Sacagawea dollar was authorized by Congress in 1997 because the supply of Anthony dollars in inventory since their last mintage in 1981 was soon expected to be depleted. These coins have a copper core clad in manganese brass. Delays in increasing Sacagawea dollar production led to a final 1999-dated mintage of Susan B. Anthony dollars. Dollar coins are used infrequently in general commerce. They used to be given as change by United States Postal Service (USPS) stamp vending machines, which created a relatively small but significant demand, but the USPS eliminated all those machines by 2011. They were also used in certain subway and public transit systems, such as the Boston subway and New York City Subway ticketing machines.

In 1998, the U.S. Mint conducted a limited design competition for the new dollar, inviting 23 artists to submit designs portraying Sacagawea on the obverse ("heads") side and an American bald eagle on the reverse ("tails") side. In November 1998, an exhibit of 123 submitted designs was held at the Casa Italiana Hall in Washington, D.C., to solicit public and private comment. Design concepts were submitted in the form of drawings, renderings, sculpture, and die-struck prototypes.

The obverse was designed by artist Glenna Goodacre. Since no verifiable image of Sacagawea exists, Goodacre used Randy'L He-dow Teton, a University of New Mexico college student and a Shoshone Indian, as a model for the coin.

There are approximately 1 billion Sacagawea coins in circulation and about 250 million in reserve. The U.S. Mint greatly reduced production of Sacagawea dollars after the 2001 minting, citing sufficient inventory. From 2002 to 2008, the Sacagawea dollar was still minted for collectors and was available in uncirculated rolls, mint sets, and proof sets, but it was not released for general circulation again until the introduction of the Native American series in 2009.

The Mint took great care to create the coin with the same size, weight, and electromagnetic properties as the Anthony dollar, but with a golden color. Unlike most other coins in circulation, the selected alloy has a tendency to tarnish quite severely in circulation, as is the case with most brasses, resulting in a loss of the golden shine, except on raised areas where the "patina" is more frequently rubbed off. While some consider the blackening an undesirable quality, the Mint suggests the uneven tarnishing effect gives the coins an "antique finish" that "accentuate[s] the profile and add[s] a dimension of depth to the depiction of Sacagawea and her child".

The coin featured a plain edge through 2008, but starting in 2009, incused lettering was applied. The year and mint mark moved from the coin's obverse (front) to its edge.

, dollar coins are not widely encountered in U.S. commerce, except in vending machines for rides on mass transit, some pay and display machines, some laundromats, and old-fashioned slot machines. On the other hand, the Sacagawea dollar has achieved popularity in El Salvador, Ecuador, and Panama, where the U.S. dollar is also the official currency.

Native American series
With the passage of the Native American $1 Coin Act on September 20, 2007, the U.S. Mint began designing a series of Sacagawea dollars with modified reverses to further commemorate "Native Americans and the important contributions made by Indian tribes and individual Native Americans to the development of the United States and the history of the United States". Four designs were to be minted, each for one year from 2009 to 2012. The first Native American series coin was released in January 2009 and had a reverse that depicted a Native American woman sowing seeds of the Three Sisters, symbolizing the Indian tribes' contributions to agriculture.

Like the Presidential Dollar, the year of issue, mint mark, and motto E Pluribus Unum are found on the edge of the coin instead of on the obverse or reverse, which allows for more room for the design. Unlike the Presidential $1 coins from before 2009, "In God We Trust" remains on the obverse and the vacant space on the edge lettering has been taken up by thirteen stars, symbolizing the Thirteen Colonies. Also, unlike any other denomination of circulating U.S. coinage (but in common with the Presidential $1 coins), the value is inscribed in numerals on the reverse. The act passed by Congress requires that 20% of the total dollar coins minted in any year during the Presidential $1 Coin Program be Sacagawea dollars bearing the new design.

In January 2010, the second reverse design in the series was released which has the theme of "Government" and the "Great Tree of Peace". The 2010 Sacagawea reverse depicts the Hiawatha Belt and five arrows bound together representing unity with the inscription "Haudenosaunee", a synonym for the Iroquois Confederacy meaning "People of the Longhouse". Another inscription is found along the lower edge of the reverse spelling "Great Law of Peace" (an English translation of Gayanashagowa, the Iroquois Confederacy constitution). The Great Law of Peace was used as a model for the Constitution of the United States. The four links on the belt are meant to symbolize four of the five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, namely the Mohawk, Oneida, Cayuga and Seneca Nations. The Eastern White Pine tree in the middle of the belt represents the fifth Nation, the Onondaga, and is a depiction of the Tree of Peace.

Presidential Dollar Coins (2007–2016; 2020)
In December 2005, Congress decided to create a new series of $1 coins that would honor the former U.S. presidents. In 2007, Presidential coins of four different designs were produced. Another four designs will be produced each year, honoring the presidents in order of service. (Grover Cleveland is on two coins since he served two non-consecutive terms.) The Presidential $1 Coin Act is intended to create renewed interest in dollar coins, like that seen during the 50 State Quarters program. At least one-third of all dollar coins produced are still Sacagawea coins, with the remaining coins making up the four presidential coins produced annually. Under federal law, no coins may be issued featuring a living president, or a president who died less than two years earlier.

The presidential dollar coin is the same size and composition as the Sacagawea dollar. "In God We Trust", the issue year, and the mint mark appear on the edge. The first dollar, honoring George Washington, was released into circulation on February 15, 2007. However, became law on December 26, 2007, which moved "In God We Trust" from the edge to the obverse.

A common minting error on this coin, estimated at 80,000, from a mintage of 300,000,000 coins, is the omission of the edge lettering causing a plain outside edge. Because the omission includes the words "In God We Trust", some in the popular media have dubbed it the "godless" coin. A false (although at one time widely reported) error is the report that the edge lettering is upside down. The edge lettering does not occur at the same time as the minting of the coins, allowing for the natural occurrence of the lettering in either orientation, except Proof Coins where the date and lettering are all "right-side-up".

Because of budget constraints and increasing stockpiles of these relatively unpopular coins, the production of new presidential dollar coins for circulation was suspended on December 11, 2011, by U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. Further minting of these coins was reserved solely for collectors.

American Innovation Dollar Coins (2018–2032)
On July 20, 2018, then-President Donald Trump signed the American Innovation $1 Coin Act into law. The program calls for the release of four new coins each year from 2019 through 2032 "to honor innovation and innovators by issuing $1 coins for each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five U.S. territories – Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands". An introductory coin, commemorating George Washington signing the country's first patent into law, was released in December 2018. The coins are currently only being minted for collectors.

Designs

 * Silver dollar coins
 * Flowing Hair dollar 1794–1795
 * Draped Bust dollar 1795–1803
 * Draped Bust, Small Eagle 1795–1798
 * Draped Bust, Heraldic Eagle 1798–1803, 1804 (not a regular issue)
 * Gobrecht dollar 1836–1839
 * Seated Liberty dollar 1840–1873
 * Seated Liberty, no motto 1840–1865
 * Seated Liberty, with motto 1866–1873
 * Trade dollar 1873–1878 (Business & Proofs struck), 1879–1885 (Proofs only)
 * Morgan dollar 1878–1904, 1921
 * Peace dollar 1921–1935
 * Peace dollar (high relief) 1921
 * Peace dollar (low relief) 1922–1928, 1934–1935
 * American Silver Eagle 1986–present

 * Gold dollar coins
 * Liberty Head (Small Size) 1849–1854
 * Indian Head (Large Size) 1854–1889
 * Small Indian Head 1854–1856
 * Large Indian Head 1856–1889

 * Copper-nickel clad dollar coins
 * Eisenhower dollar 1971–1974, 1977–1978
 * Eisenhower Bicentennial 1975–1976 (all dated 1976)
 * Susan B. Anthony dollar 1979–1981, 1999

 * Manganese brass "golden" dollar coins
 * Sacagawea dollar (eagle reverse) 2000–2008
 * Sacagawea dollar (Native American series) 2009–present
 * Presidential dollar coins 2007–2016, 2020
 * American Innovation dollars 2018–2032

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Dollar coin (United States)


text:
Germantown, New York (disambiguation)

Germantown is the name of three places in the U.S. state of New York:

 * Germantown (town), New York, in Columbia County
 * Germantown (CDP), New York, in Columbia County
 * Germantown, in the town of Clarksville, Allegany County, New York
 * Germantown, in the city of Port Jervis, New York

title: Germantown, New York (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Altermondialization

We don't need an article on this term alone. This should just be folded back into the anti-globalization movement article.

There is no information that would belong on this page that would not belong on that page. DanKeshet

 * Merged with alter-globalization... I dunno... the term "altermondialisation" is pretty big in France. -- Kowey 21:51, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Altermondialization


text:
Talk:Carlo Gozzi

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sqyidney.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Looking for a current English version of Gozzi's best play?

I was. I've been searching for one everywhere as I know a lot of people were. But luckily there is a brand new version on Amazon and Barnes and Noble!

Here are the details:

ISBN: 1411602250 Title: The Love of Three Oranges: a Play that takes the commedia dell'arte of Carlo Gozzi and updates it for the new millenium By: Carlo Gozzi Rewritten by: Hillary DePiano

I have also seen it for almost half price at http://www.lulu.com/hillarydepiano

I wanted to pass this exciting news on to the other Gozzi fans! :-)

title: Talk:Carlo Gozzi


text: Wikipedia:New contributors' help page

title: Wikipedia:New contributors' help page


text:
Germantown, Pennsylvania

Germantown, Pennsylvania may refer to:

 * Germantown, Adams County, Pennsylvania, an unincorporated area in Adams County, Pennsylvania
 * Germantown, Cambria County, Pennsylvania, a place in Pennsylvania
 * Germantown, Columbia County, Pennsylvania, a place in Pennsylvania
 * Germantown, Franklin County, Pennsylvania
 * Germantown, Pike County, Pennsylvania, a place in Pennsylvania
 * Germantown, Philadelphia, a neighborhood in the northwest section of Philadelphia
 * Germantown Township, Pennsylvania, a defunct township incorporated into Philadelphia

title: Germantown, Pennsylvania


text:
User talk:Dukeofomnium

archive

Meetup
Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Barsetshire

The article Barsetshire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of 'This article meets criteria A and B because...' and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dukeofomnium


text:
Worshipful Company of Turners

The Worshipful Company of Turners is one of the Livery Companies of the City of London.

The Turners' Company is one of the oldest Livery Companies in the City of London. Its origins go back to early medieval times: the first reference to a London turner dates to 1189, though the charter is dated 1155. The medieval Company was a trade guild, set up to protect the interests of its members, whose skill was to turn and shape wooden objects on a lathe. They laid down standards for their products; they had a strict system of apprenticeship; they restricted competition from outsiders; and they collected for charity and funeral expenses. Unlike the richer Livery Companies the Turners were craftsmen, not merchants. Yet at a time when many everyday necessities, like chairs, cups and plates, were turned products, successful London turners could make a good living by the standards of the day. The contemporary Turners' Company reflects many of the traditions of earlier days. Its main objective remains to promote the craft of turning, which, in the 21st century, encompasses a broad spectrum of styles from the traditional and practical to the intricate and ornate right through to large statement pieces and avant garde works of art, always pushing the boundaries to see what can be achieved. Both leading professional turners and enthusiastic amateurs are members of the Company. The Company promotes the craft of turning by running a major exhibition, known as "Wizardry in Wood", every four years. It holds turning competitions, and offers prizes and bursaries to established and aspirant turners. It supports the Register of Professional Turners, which gives details of leading turners and what they make. There is an active charity, with a significant focus on the craft: the Company has donated lathes to schools, including computer-controlled lathes for the use of disabled students. The Company also runs a lively social programme to promote friendship and good fellowship among its members and their guests.

The Company received its royal charter from King James 1st in 1604, and is 51st in the order of precedence of City Livery Companies.

The company motto is By Faith I Obteigne, or, in Modern English, By Faith I Obtain.

Masters of the Turners' Company

 * 1783: Onesimus Ustonson
 * 1818: John Ustonson
 * 1965: Hugh Lindley-Jones
 * 1980–1981: Sir Brian Neill
 * 1987–1988: Sir Leonard Atkinson

title: Worshipful Company of Turners


text:
Bradgate Park

Bradgate Park is a public park in Charnwood Forest, in Leicestershire, England, northwest of Leicester. It covers 850 acre. The park lies between the villages of Newtown Linford, Anstey, Cropston, Woodhouse Eaves and Swithland. The River Lin runs through the park, flowing into Cropston Reservoir which was constructed on part of the park. To the north-east lies Swithland Wood. The park's two well known landmarks, Old John and the war memorial, both lie just above the 210 m contour. The park is part of the 399.3 hectare Bradgate Park and Cropston Reservoir Site of Special Scientific Interest, which has been designated under both biological and geological criteria.

Following a fire in April 2017, the owners Bradgate Trust advised that all visitors are expected to be alert to the risk of causing fire, though another fire in June destroyed one of the ancient oaks.

History
The area now enclosed as Bradgate Park was one of a number of parks surrounding Charnwood Forest. Since medieval times it has been part of the Manor of Groby. In the reign of Edward the Confessor, the area was owned by a landowner named Ulf. The manor, along with some 100 others in and around Leicestershire, was awarded to Hugh de Grandmesnil in the eleventh century as reward for his assistance in battle to William I. The name Bradgate is thought to derive from Norse or Anglo-Saxon, meaning "broad road" or "broad gate" respectively. The first mention of Bradgate Park is from 1241, by which time it was laid out as a hunting park, although rather smaller than the current boundary. It was subsequently acquired by the Beaumont family, passing to the de Quincy family and on to William de Ferrers of Groby. It remained in the de Ferrers family until 1445, when it passed to the Grey family after William's only surviving daughter married Edward Grey. The inquisition into the estates of de Ferrers, made after his death, mentions the park, with "herbage, pannage and underwood, worth 40 shillings yearly". The Grey family retained it for the next 500 years, and in the 19th century was opened to the public several days a week. In 1928 it was bought by Charles Bennion and given, as a plaque in the park describes, 'to be preserved in its natural state for the quiet enjoyment of the people of Leicestershire'.

Medieval deer park
The park was originally enclosed using a bank and ditch topped by vertical pales of oak. These first ditchworks cross the River Lyn east of the Little Matlock Gorge. A parker, living in a moated house, was the only occupant, maintaining stocks of deer for the lord of Groby Manor to hunt. The park was greatly extended by the first marquis in the late 15th century, to occupy land previously farmed by both Newtown Linford and the now lost village of Bradgate. Lichen dating of the dry-stone walls suggest that the north and west boundary walls were built in the 17th and early 18th centuries, when Bradgate was still occupied by the earls of Stamford. The walled spinneys are a later feature, built and planted in the early 19th century as coverts for shooting. The park still has herds of red and fallow deer, which probably have an unbroken occupancy since medieval times.

Bradgate House
Edward Grey's son Sir John Grey of Groby married Elizabeth Woodville, who after John's death married King Edward IV. Their son Thomas Grey, 1st Marquess of Dorset, prepared for building Bradgate House in the late fifteenth century but died before he was able to begin. It was his son Thomas Grey, 2nd Marquess of Dorset, who built Bradgate House, the likely completion date being 1520. There is now some confusion over this completion date however, as an older house has been discovered under the visible walls and findings have suggested that Lady Jane Grey who wasn't born until October 12, 1537 lived in the older house.

Sir Thomas Grey died in 1530 and was succeeded by his son Henry, the 3rd Marquess of Dorset, who was married to Frances, the daughter of the Duke of Suffolk and Mary Tudor, King Henry VIII's younger sister.

Their daughter Lady Jane Grey was born at Bradgate House probably in October 1537. Notably in July 1553, at the age of fifteen, the Duke of Northumberland (her husband's father) proclaimed her Queen of England and Ireland, in opposition to Mary Tudor. However Mary had more support, and when the Lord Mayor of London proclaimed Mary queen on July 19, the Duke of Northumberland lost all support, and he, his son, and Lady Jane Grey, the Nine Days Queen, were beheaded for treason.

There is a longstanding tradition that the oak trees of Bradgate were pollarded at the time of Lady Jane's death. Pollarding of the trees was a practice that was undertaken then, as before and since as it kept the new growth high up, away from browsing deer and has enabled the ancient trees to reach their great age. It is not known if the estate workers of 1554 attached any particular significance to the practice.

Old John
A prominent landmark is the folly known as 'Old John' on the top of the highest hill in the park. Built by the Greys in 1784, the folly is, by local legend, a memorial to John, an estate worker killed in a bonfire accident during celebrations of the 21st birthday of the future sixth Earl of Stamford. It is reputed that the stonework at the side of the tower was altered to look like a handle, perhaps knowing John's liking of ale. However he was not 21 until 1786, and a map of 1745 names the hill as 'Old John'. The tower was used during the 19th century as a viewing point for the horse-racing practice circuit laid out by the seventh earl.

In 2001, Bradgate Park Trust registered the design of the building as a trademark, and in 2018 told a local artist that she would have to pay them if she continued to sell her paintings of it.

Cropston Reservoir
Cropston Reservoir was constructed in the south-east corner of the park in 1871, submerging the Head Keeper's house and a substantial area of former parkland. It was Leicester's second reservoir (after Thornton), built in response to the 1831 and 1841 cholera epidemics. The water level was raised 2 ft in 1887, to increase capacity and the original steam powered beam engines ran until 1956. A number of pools were also constructed along the course of the River Lin through the park, to allow silt to settle before reaching the reservoir. A second, covered reservoir was added on the northern side of the park in the early 1960s.

Proposed railway
In 1899, a Private member's Bill was presented to Parliament for the formation and construction of the Leicester, Groby and Bradgate Park Railway. At a distance of 5 miles, 4 furlongs and 1.4 chains long, the railway was planned to run from Newtown Linford, through Sheet Hedges Wood, under Bradgate Road, and then via Cropston to a junction with the Great Central Main Line within Thurcaston parish, to the north of Rothley railway station. The proponents of the bill stated that the primary purpose of the line would be to carry passengers. In reality, the aim of the promoters was for the new railway to take granite from Sheet Hedges Quarry to the Great Central Railway, as well as potentially encourage the opening of quarries in Bradgate Park. The proposal ultimately failed however, as the Commons Committee meeting on 20 March 1899 felt that the argument in favour of building the railway was insufficient.

Public park
In 1905 the estate was bequeathed on the death of the 7th Earl of Stamford's widow to the earl's niece, Mrs Arthur Duncombe. Limited public access had been allowed while the park was in the hands of the Greys. In 1928, the ancient Deer Park with the ruins of Bradgate House was included in the sale of the whole Grey estate and the Park was bought by local businessman and British United Shoe Machinery founder Charles Bennion who gave it in perpetuity to the people of Leicestershire. Plaques on Old John and the main path through the park commemorate the gift. Bennion's son subsequently added the gift of an adjacent piece of land, and in 1936 the City Council purchased an additional 46.5 acres of land abutting the park. The nearby Swithland Wood had previously been sold in 1921 to the Leicester timber merchant William Gimson, who began to extract the timber commercially, with the aim of dividing up the land for building plots as it was gradually cleared. Following public concern about the threatened loss of this ancient woodland of importance for its geological, natural history and industrial history features, in 1925 the Rotary Club of Leicester, with the cooperation of William Gimson, bought the whole site of approximately 137 acre for preservation and to provide access to the public for recreation "as a national heritage". The Rotary Club established the Swithland Wood Trust, repaired and renewed the fencing of the area, provided car parking and restored the paths, spending around £6,000 on the original purchase, fencing and landscaping. The Club opened Swithland Wood to the public on August Bank Holiday, 2 August 1925, employing its own staff to manage the Wood and visitor services. In 1928 the Club initiated the annual Bluebell Service in the Wood, in partnership with Swithland Parish Church. On 29 December 1929 the Bradgate Park Charity with trustees nominated by the County Council and the National Trust was established to manage Charles Bennion's purchase and gift of Bradgate Park, with the appropriate senior officers of the Council providing the necessary professional and administrative services, including land management, legal, secretariat and financial support. Although there does not seem to have been a formal opening of Bradgate Park, public access to the Park became available soon afterwards in 1929. In 1931, once the Bradgate Park Trust was fully operational and established, the Rotary Club approached the County Council and trustees about the possibility of merging the two properties and charities under the Bradgate Park trustees and this was completed in 1931. The park is now administered by the Bradgate Park and Swithland Wood Charitable Trust, with trustees nominated by Leicestershire County Council, Leicester City Council and the National Trust. With the consent of the Charity Commission, the charity has adopted the shorter working title of Bradgate Park Trust.

Civil parish
It was formerly an extra-parochial tract, in 1858 Bradgate Park became a separate civil parish, on 25 March 1884 the parish was abolished and merged with Newtown Linford, Anstey and Ulverscroft. In 1881 the parish had a population of 6.

Geology

The visible geology in Bradgate Park ranges from some of the oldest (Precambrian) fossil bearing rocks in England to the youngest (Quaternary). The rock outcrops were created in conditions varying from volcanos rising out of the ocean, to magma flowing deep underground and from tropical deserts to Ice sheets. Within the park the outcrops are widely distributed as hillside crags and outcrops, both along the valley sides of the River Lin and on the hilltop of Old John. They include rocks with some of the oldest known developed forms of fossil animal life in Western Europe.

Precambrian rocks

The Precambrian outcrops include four 'type-members' of the Charnian Supergroup, formed some 560 million years ago. Bradgate is one of the few areas of Britain where these ancient basement rocks can be seen at the surface. The oldest of the Charnian rocks within Bradgate Park are the rocks nearest the Old John and memorial summits. This is the Beacon Hill Formation. It appears to have formed in deep water, out of sediments of volcanic ash and other pyroclastic material, which were then subject to slumping and submarine flows, to create rocks with various degrees of stratification. The volcano itself was in the north-west of Charnwood Forest, and the whole area was in the southern tropic, off the coast of the continent of Gondwana. (A modern parallel might be the sea surrounding Montserrat. ) Some of the layers show great variation, showing how an initial volcanic eruption would result in larger sediments rapidly settling to create course-grained tuff, followed by settling of much finer material to form much smoother dust-tuffs – smooth light-grey to creamy coloured rocks seen to the north of Old John. The various layers were subsequently deeply buried, subject to vast periods of mountain-building (orogeny), heat, pressure and erosion of overlying material, to expose the hard, jagged outcrops seen in the photograph.

Overlying the Beacon Hill Formation, but found a little further down the hillside to the south, are the Bradgate Formation beds, the most notable of which is the Sliding Stone Slump Breccia rocks. Forming a line of crags below Old John, these are laminated mudstones, with layers of sandstone, mainly of volcanic origin. The beds are substantially warped, contorted and folded. Many of the more intricate folds and 'sag' patterns are thought to have occurred while the sediments were unconsolidated and water saturated. Suggested causes for these include slumping, earth tremors and fault-movements, trapped water or gases and volcanic bomb impacts. Outcrops of other rocks of the Bradgate Formation are found further down the slope. These are younger than and stratigraphically above the breccia, but the uplift from ancient mountain-building, the dip of the beds and erosion of overlying rocks mean that the younger rocks are encountered at progressively lower altitudes.

The youngest of the Precambrian rocks are the South Charnwood Diorites. These are known locally as granite, (geologically they were formerly described as markfieldite) and are quarried commercially at Groby and Markfield. These are igneous intrusions of magma which formed within the existing Beacon Hill and Bradgate Formations. They cooled slowly and at great depth to create their large crystalline structure, and were subsequently exposed by erosion of the uplifted rocks above. The Diorites are the cliffs and blocks seen along the Lin valley, through the so-called Little Matlock Gorge and near Bradgate House. They are massive blocky outcrops made up of crystals of feldspar, quartz and mafic minerals.

Cambrian rocks
An area of rock overlooking Cropston Reservoir is of Hanging Rocks Formation, the only other example being at Hangingstone Hills, near the Outwoods, 4 km to the north. It is unclear if this is late Precambrian or early Cambrian. It is distinguished by conglomerates with well-rounded volcanic pebbles mostly 5–15 mm but some up to 100 mm in diameter, which may have been smoothed on a volcanic shoreline before being washed, along with much finer material, into deeper water. These are younger than the Bradgate Formation, but again at a lower altitude. A possibly explanation is that it formed in a channel cut into the existing sea floor, but a preferred conclusion is that movement along fault-lines has relocated it relative to its surrounding rocks. The relationship between the different outcrops in Bradgate are made more obscure by the overlying peat and Boulder clay, which mean the contacts between adjacent stratigraphic sequences are nowhere exposed.

Previously classed as precambrian, but now accepted as early Cambrian are the Brand Group of rocks which include Swithland Slate, locally important as a source of roof slates and gravestones. The nearby Swithland Wood has extensive outcrops and was one of the principal quarry areas until the mid 19th century. Rocks close in age to the slate can be seen in the 'stable pit', a medieval quarry near Bradgate House. This outcrop is part of the Brand Group and is known as the Stable Pit Member, a Quartz arenite rock with a smooth glassy appearance. A metre-wide dyke of diorite also runs through the exposed rocks of the quarry, possibly of late Ordovician age, which places it at a similar age to the Mountsorrel granite formations.

Triassic rocks
During the Triassic period, some 350 million years after those ancient rocks were formed, they were exposed due to the erosion of the rocks above. By this point they were part of the Pangea supercontinent and desert conditions resulted in an accumulation of windblown Loess, which now forms the Mercia Mudstone Group. With the subsequent sinking of the East Midlands crust, these deposits became waterlogged and formed into red clay. It is this clay that was used to make the bricks for Bradgate House. The mudstone is only visible where it was extracted, across the stream from Bradgate House. However, it covers much of the valley floor around and beneath Cropston Reservoir, – demonstrating that the present Lin valley was also there 220 million years ago.

Quaternary deposits
Bradgate Park and its surrounding areas were heavily overlain in the (geologically) recent past by glacial deposits of Boulder Clay. The Quaternary period includes the last ice age. As the ice melted, some 10,000 years ago, the solid material within the ice settled over the 'natural' rocks below. This material includes unsorted clay and sand particles, small and large pebbles and large stones and boulders. It travelled great distances within the ice sheets and glaciers, so individual rocks, whether on the ground, or within the great lengths of stone walls of the Park, may be local stone, or may be a specimen from northern Britain or even from northern Europe.

Precambrian fossils
The fossils at Bradgate and in other nearby Charnian rocks are the only known Precambrian fossils in Western Europe. Until 1957 it had been thought that complex life forms and perhaps life itself began with the Cambrian Period and that all rocks older than this developed in a world without plants or animals. The 1957 discoveries, by Roger Mason, in rocks near Woodhouse Eaves, subsequently named in his honour as Charnia masoni, required a re-evaluation of when life began. It also resulted in the re-classification of other rocks in Southern Australia and Newfoundland, which have similar fossil marks. At Bradgate Park there are some 50 known examples. They mainly take the form of two-dimensional impressions of fronds and disks and have at various times been described as seaweed, jelly fish, corals or sea anemones. They are now described as belonging to the Ediacara biota, with no consensus on which kingdom, current or extinct, they should be placed. The Bradgate examples include Bradgatia linfordensis and Charniodiscus concentricus as well as Charnia masoni. Because of the risk of vandalism and damage, specific locations of these fossils are not disclosed and those wishing to investigate them should first of all seek the permission of the Bradgate Park Trust. None of the rocks in Bradgate Park should be chipped, hammered, or otherwise sampled, replicated or removed.

Flora and fauna

The landscape is rocky moorland with a covering of coarse grass and bracken. Several spinneys of woodland (pine and mixed deciduous) are enclosed by stone walls and are not accessible to the public. There are a number of magnificent specimens of ancient oaks several hundreds of years old. The park is home to herds of red deer and fallow deer. Birdlife is profuse – the reservoir attracts many species of wildfowl, as does the river and the spinneys provide secluded nesting areas for many other species, including large colonies of rooks. Species such as yellowhammer, reed bunting, skylark and meadow pipit are a common sight in the open areas of the park. Deadly nightshade is allowed to grow within the ruins of Bradgate House, having been originally established there during World War II by Leicester Polytechnic's School of Pharmacy for medicinal purposes.

Dogs
As of 2015 deer numbers were around 450 but concerns have been raised about dogs chasing deer. Trust notices displayed at the entrances now advise that dogs must be on a lead in specified areas near the main footpath. Dogs are allowed off lead in around 75% of the area of the park, so long as they are kept under effective control and do not worry the deer. The Daily Telegraph highlighted Bradgate in an article referencing the busybodies charter though it failed to mention the deer.

Café and information centres
In July 2016 a visitor centre opened in the Deer Barn buildings off the main path east of Bradgate House in addition to the existing cafe. The geology section features details of the park's formation during its stages of volcanism, glacial erosion and inhabitation by Ediacara biota. It also shows the tracks of a later land based lizard. The archaeology section features work by Leicester University beginning in 2014 and includes evidence of Creswellian sites from 14,500 years ago.

The Deer Barns café in the centre of the park is open 7 days a week and offers sandwiches, toasties, jacket potatoes and other cold snacks and hot and cold drinks.

There is also a café at the Newtown Linford car park which is operated externally as of 2021.

Car
Pay&Display car parks are operated at the Hallgates entrance and Hunts Hill (at the top of the park near Old John). At Newtown Linford an automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system is in operation and visitors pay on exit. The park is open from dawn until dusk all year round, though the public footpaths which run through the area mean that in practice the park is always accessible.

Bus
A limited service 125 operates by the Newtown Linford entrance Monday to Saturday and Arriva 29B operates an infrequent Sunday service both serve Leicester City Centre and Coalville.

Walking
One path is directly opposite the bus stop on Link Road, between Cropston Road and Hazelhead Road. The path is signposted from Link Road and crosses several fields before entering the park proper. Another route, which joins the main path, is accessible from the edge of the village, adjacent to the last houses on Bradgate Road.

Cycling
The park is within easy cycling distance from the city centre of Leicester.

title: Bradgate Park