Jump to content

Talk:Mahatma Gandhi New Series

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

This is a new design for the existing Mahatma Gandhi Series and I feel merging this article with the original will make the article more descriptive. This can be a section in the original article instead of being a whole article itself. AkshayAnandTalk! 02:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Since this a distinct series of banknotes that succeeds the old Mahatma Gandhi series, I believe that it meets the Wikipedia guidelines for notability and hence deserves an individual article.
--AdityaChanana (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, both the articles (Mahatma Gandhi Series and Mahatma Gandhi New Series) are on different series of banknotes of the Indian rupee and meets the Wikipedia guidelines for notability and hence deserves an individual article. Hydloc009 (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

The RBI has referred to the new series as Mahatma Gandhi (New) Series. Are the parentheses significant? AdityaChanana (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design inconsistencies

[edit]

The new series of banknotes have design inconsistencies which may not be noticed by the untrained eye. Some of the inconsistencies are:

  • On the reverse of the 50 note, the words "FIFTY RUPEES" and on the 500 note, the words "FIVE HUNDRED RUPEES" are both set in the Helvetica typeface. However on the reverse of the 200 and 2000 notes, the words "TWO HUNDRED RUPEES" and "TWO THOUSAND RUPEES" are both set in the Arial typeface. This is easily verified by comparing the uppercase "R" in the words "HUNDRED" and "RUPEES".
  • On the reverse of the respective banknotes, the figures "50" and "500" are set in Helvetica, but the figures "200" and "2000" are set in Arial.

I have added this in the article. -Polytope4D (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that such inconsistencies may be a deliberate move to deter conterfeiters, I have removed the section. Also, on second thoughts, it is not of encyclopaedic importance.-Polytope4D (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]