Talk:Australian two-dollar coin

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

Circulating vs non-circulating designation for the 2016 Paralympic Games 2 dollar coin[edit]

Removed the phrase "this was not released for circulation" because if being issued through Woolworths tills as individual coins counts as "circulation", as it seems to for the other five 2016 Olympic 2 dollar coins, then it does for the Paralympic coin because it was. It was available as a standalone coin _and_ as a coin in folder. The cited source actually supports this.

Curiously though _none_ of them are listed here despite there being entries for more recent circulating issues: https://www.ramint.gov.au/two-dollars


Where are the numbers minted figures from?[edit]

The minting figures section has listed the numbers of $2 coins minted for each year. But comparison with the RAM official numbers are completely different wrong for 2011 and 2010. What is going on?

http://www.ramint.gov.au/designs/ram-designs/2dollars.cfm Yendor of yinn (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:1104:6A00:A569:78AF:A1CE:D679 (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

Fair use rationale for Image:Australian Two Dollar Obv.jpg[edit]

Image:Australian Two Dollar Obv.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Australian Two Dollar Rev.jpg[edit]

Image:Australian Two Dollar Rev.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Australian Identity[edit]

I heard there was some concern with the fact that on all the other coins are Australian animals http://www.mundanebehavior.org/issues/v2n3/awofeso-green.htm phocks (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No 2012 Production?[edit]

It says on the page that "The only years that had no production was 1991... ...and 2012" however I have, in front of me now, a 2012 $2 coin... I am reading it wrong or is the page wrong? The coin is a standard 'Aboriginal Elder' design on the back and is marked as 2012. Just what I have seen... :)

(Despite removing this, I double-checked closer-up and it definitely *is* 2012!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyosamo (talkcontribs) 08:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section can be removed now. Query has been resolved - current page's text reference to no production in 2012 already has been removed, and circulation figure noted for 2012 matchs Royal Australian Mint data on page: https://www.ramint.gov.au/two-dollar TurtleNZ (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

highest-denomination _regular_ coin[edit]

We currently say:

"The Australian two dollar coin is the highest-denomination coin of the Australian dollar."

Would probably be more accurate to say:

"The Australian two dollar coin is the highest-denomination regular coin of the Australian dollar."

There are Australian coins with a face value up to $1,000,000. They are legal tender, though you wouldn't - the value of the metal in them exceeds the face value.

e.g. https://www.kidsnews.com.au/money/australias-milliondollar-gold-coin-has-a-big-day-out-in-new-york/news-story/24f7c2711719609e29ce257b39c5595d

Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics[edit]

I just added the commemorative coins for the "2020" Olympics and Paralympics to the list under the 2020 section (and clean up some messed up coding from someone's previous additions). I did that because that is the year that is actually inscribed on the coins, however due to the delay of the games the coins were actually released in 2021. I'm not sure which would be the correct way to present them - by year inscribed or by release year, but felt the inscribed year would be correct. So I don't know if they need to be changed, but perhaps a footnote should be included to note the release date differs from the inscribed date? 2001:8003:2D90:C400:B591:1789:A12D:4D64 (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]