Talk:Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

The Christian Religious Orders - Quality??

Although only a small (and perhaps pointless issue) but I feel its worth at least mentioning, Under Quality of the "The Christian Religious Orders" coin you have "Proof" on the Austrian flyer and under the Austrian Mint 2002 program it says that the quality is "special Uncirculated quality" and "unc" respectfully, I have not checked of the other coins are of similar fate but i would suspect so.

References: Austrian flyer - http://www.austrian-mint.at/cms/download.php?downloadId=614&languageId=2 Austrian Mint 2002 program - http://www.austrian-mint.at/cms/download.php?downloadId=262&languageId=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin hipwell (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will add a note to see if anyone can resolve this ambiguity.Miguel.mateo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

deletion policy.

"This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." What is that about??Kevin hipwell (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

An administrator claimed that this article is a copyright violation. If you follow the link on the "deletion note" you can see the arguments and my explanation. I am currently working on the article, changing the words, so it does not get into copyvio. I am sure once this is done, the article is safe. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

hallo, can somewone pleas put these pictures on Commons so they can be just on the Dutch wikipedia too. Robberty (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me know how to do it and I will, eventually I also all the images in my computer, is there any tool I can use to do bulk uploads to commons? Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If the images are "fair use" images, they will have to be uploaded separately onto the Dutch wikipedai for use there. I had to upload a separate image to use in the Engerth locomotive article. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

New Template

I created a new template for easy navigation for euro coin collectors, I put it on the articles I have been working on, didn't won't to put it on the articles you have been working on until I got your opinion of the new template.

Kevin hipwell (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, this makes a lot of sense, please go ahead. Just two countries are missing: Malta and Cyprus. They may not have collector's coins now, but they will for sure. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool I'll add themKevin hipwell (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Philharmonic coin

In the first lines about the philharmonic coin: "A beautiful design of musical instruments representing the world famous Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra can be seen on the reverse side of the coin." This reads a bit like a sales pitch... No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.131.37 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think so, but even if that is the case, there is no references where to buy it, so I think is fine. Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Values

what do you mean by the term Market price? the price that was sold for from the mint or the price on the market right now (eg ebay or shops?)?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melitikus (talk • contribs) 10:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Market Price is a range, eg €40-€65 , if it is still available from the mint then the release price would be fine, If the item is sold out then it would be a range in which the current market price would fall under, this can never be perfect as the market price changes with time, however it can be a helpful indicator for collectors.Kevin hipwell (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to put market price then we have to constantly update the articles - as they change from time to time - so that a big disadvantage of showing it plus this value is very volatile varies a lot from where u buy the coin and condition

If we are going to keep the market value then we need to add the Issue value which i believe it more important than the market value

Face Value - the coin's denomination
Issue Value - the mints/banks always sell these coins for more than their face value
Market Price - this value depends a lot on the items' condition/ age/ rarity--Melitikus (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you,

Putting Issue value was something a was going to mention near when I first started helping with these articles, but I didn't, simply because it would be a lot of effort to reformat the articles to include it.

I would also have been tempted to replace Market Value with Issue Value in order to avoid such format changes but I think Market Value has more relevance for a potential collector then Issue Value.

Its not that I disagree with you on this issue its just that adding a new parameter will involve changing the format, coming to an agreement on how its changed, applying the change to all articles & then finally looking up the information to add.Kevin hipwell (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

while writing the Vatican article - i ve noticed that a coin with a face value of €50 had an issue value of €380.00 - so if i would see this coin on ebay for €400 and i dont hv the knowledge that this coin was released for €380 (so that is the cheapest price ever available for) , i would believe that the seller is asking too much for it.

so market value alone wont give details how more precious this coin got - while if we list the issue price then u can easily see how expensive the coin got

yes i can understand that adding a new parameter would completely change the format - i suggest that from now on, for the new lists we list the issue price - as i said the market price is very volatile and we would need to constantly change them from time to time - and to keep that up to date would be very difficult. Also as a collector i would prefer to know the issue price and then judge myself if the price on the market is too much or not. But if i dont know the issue price then it will be very difficult for me to know if the seller is asking too much or not , like the example i hv given of the vatican coin. Now its up to you but the articles that i wrote i listed the Issue value--Melitikus (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let me sleep over it, I might come up with an easy way to change the layout. In the mean while, issue value can always be added to the description of the coin. I do agree with both of your comments, particularly I will be very happy if this issue value is added as well. However, finding the information may be a hell of a big deal, particularly for the old coins no longer found with the mints or banks.

Also, I do agree that market value will change, that is why I have referenced and we should continue to do so. I would suggest to put the date the reference was made on it, so it is easy to know when that market value was available. Just my thoughts ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I have been playing around and I think that we will be duplicating a lot of efforts for just a few coins. For example, the vast majority of the Austrian coins still have market value = issue value, since the mint still sells them. This may apply to almost all coins.

As a compromise, may I suggest to have two lines (one for issue value and other for market value) within the same cell, when the market value indeed has gone up? Also, for those coins that are no longer sold by the mints or banks, how are we going to get the original issue value? I do not want to create a cell just for the sake of having it if we can not populate the data (it will fail one of the criteria for Featured List or Featured Article, since the information has to be "complete").

However, I do understand that Vatican coins (and possibly San Marinese and Monasque coins) will be an exception, why don't we concentrate on those coins later or we can try right after the Vatican articles is finished? I believe the information is important, but maybe just three articles will be the ones worth to mention it.

Finally, for the market price, if the date is in the references, it is obvious for future editors when that market prices was available, future editors can update that information, it does not have to fall in our shoulders I hope.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that by default we should quote the issue price, then if this is not available we can quote the market one. It shouldn’t be a problem as far as we indicate if it’s the market or issue price. Then on the main page of the Euro Gold and Silver Commemorative coins we should briefly explain what we mean by face value, issue price and market price.Melitikus (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, we can always show both where it makes sense, for the Vatican coins for example, on the same cell, the page will not look weird. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Black Border

i suggest that between the details of each coin to make a black border rather than leaving the grey one - this would make it more reader friendly thus easier to follow that you switched to another coin--Melitikus (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to test your idea on the black borders, I'm not sure what the code is to do so. Kevin hipwell (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

im hopless about creating tables on here :S --Melitikus (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Paste an image here, even a rough one done with Paint or something similar, I just want to understand the idea; I can help with the code then. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I created this using pain to show what i mean - IMO this way they look more neat and easier to follow--Melitikus (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I made the change as a test, however in my opinion I prefer it the way it wasKevin hipwell (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but let me play with it a bit, maybe reducing the height will improve Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed 2002 only for your perusal. In the code it is not exactly what I ambitioned, but kinda of like the end result. Let me know your thoughts. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Any comments? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need to make any changes to the gap, I don't see any advantage to the changes you made Miguel, However at the same time I'm not opposed to the change either way looks fine.Kevin hipwell (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the last comment, I didn't mean to put a negative vibe on the idea of changing the separator, I just want to avoid having to put work in changing the layout when there is not a huge benefit, I understand that your opinions are different on this issue and I don't object to the change if you guys want it. In my opinion (if I exclude the work factor) the change you made Miguel is not much different from how it was before but does help fortify the separation from one coin to another. As for the black separator I think that would be suitable for separating years. I will test this on the 2004 section for a comparison with the other 2 styles.Kevin hipwell (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To be completely honest I agree with you, I do not see the difference (it just looks nicer) I would rather not to do anything for the moment and continue putting our efforts in filling what is missing in all the articles; then we can play around. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I just hope this does not dismay you(Melitikus) from continuing your contributions to these articles as they are greatly appreciatedKevin hipwell (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes Melitikus, this is definitely not the case. I would rather to finish the articles and then clarify if we are going to do changes in the design of the articles. FYI, I have a developer background, and once the new code with the new changes is decided I can apply those changes to all articles very easily. But I really do not see the need right now of getting this done. Let us know if you feel otherwise. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

hey dont worry, i do agree with you and even if someday i dont that wont de-motivate me, im not that active during the week days as i have little free time - i hope i will have more time in the weekendsMelitikus (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To do list (for FL nomination)

Intro in the nomination:

I'm nominating this article for featured list because I think it passes all of the FL criteria and the information it provides is not easy to find on catalogs or in the internet (it is staggered in several sites, incomplete and in different languages). I believe it is well written, well-sourced, properly formatted and the information it contains is complete (all Euro commemorative coins from 2002 until today).

As a background, the Euro is currently being used in 15 countries of the European Union. Each country can mint circulating coins and 2 Euro commemorative coins that are legal tender in the entire Euro zone. But as a legacy of the practice of minting silver and gold coins, very high value in precious metals like silver, gold, titanium, niobium, etc are still minted. These coins only have a legal tender in the issuing country. Collecting these coins and seeing how difficult is to find information about them was the main reason why a set of Wikipedians decided to start a Euro gold and silver commemorative coins set of articles, one for each of the countries.

References need formatting... all internet sources need publishers and accessdates. Look at WP:CITE/ES. Done
Use Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) leading introduction, but change it accordingly. Done
Add the summary like in the previous article, change the white cells to "-" Done
Per WP:HEAD, "Market Value" should be "Market value" Done
WP:MOS#Foreign terms says foreign terms not in common English usage should be itallicised. Like Bois du Cazier for example. Done
"Issued: 16.10.2002" violates MOS:NUM#Dates ... change these dates! Done
Wikilink effigy & GDP if used Done
Link to Obverse and reverse only on the first issue of every section Done
What is "Proof" "BU" ... wikilink them. Done
Change all dates in the texts to day month year format instead of the month day, year Done
Remove spaces between references and text. Done
consider the {{convert}} template for us imperial measurement fans, for both diameter and mass. Done
obverse and reverse should not be followed by side. Done
Eurozone is capitalised but euro is not. Done

Specifics to the Austrian article:

Bottom of the summary table doesn't go far enough - two columns short.. Done
"The 2008 Europe Taler" heading - lose the "The" per WP:HEAD Done
"although it finishes almost always in hands of collectors" this sounds like WP:OR unless you can reference it. Done
"world wide" - either one word or hyphenated I should think. Done
"beautiful design" - yes, lose the "beautiful", purely subjective. Done
Coin in the heading should just be coin.
"this coin is being also minted in Silver" - "coin has been minted in silver" - better English and don't capitalised gold or silver. Check other instances of this. Done
"„1,50 Euro“ gives the silver piece a different nature, different from the Gold representations of the coin." - just use regular quotation marks use a decimal point rather than a comma, and reword the sentence, "gives the silver piece a different nature" reads very strangely. And in what sense are they different, just the value? Done
"1.25 to 100 euros." - perhaps i'm confused but it looks like 1.50 to 100,000 euros to me? Done
"best selling" - hyphenate Done
"By many, St. Benedict is the patron saint of Western Europe and the father of western monasticism." - By many? Do you mean St B is considered by many to be...? Reword, and this kind of assertion probably needs a reference. Done
"he founded also" switch also and founded. Done
"middle ages" I suspect this is intended to be capitalised, as in Middle Ages? Done
"general view" - just view is fine. Done
"of what it seems to be three" - "what appears to be". Surely this can be clarified one way or another? Done
"250 Years Vienna Zoo" - 250th anniversary of Vienna Zoo? Done
"1752-2002" en-dash. Done
" of course, " - remove this. Done
"in the zoon" - typo. Done

Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Text on the coins

Is it possible to acccurately transcribe the text on each coin, along with a translation, and include this in each description. Many of them are only obvious if you know Austrian. And rather than saying "as usual, the inscription Republik Österreich and "euro"", to just state it each time (ie. lose "as usual"). People may jump around in the list, or go to one specific entry, and each entry should be reasonably self-contained. Anyway, here are some examples of text I would like to see transcribed and translated:

"WIENER PHILHARMONIKER" image
"SILBER" image
"1000 UNZEN GOLD 999.9" image
"1/10 UNZE GOLD 999.9" image
"1 UNZE FEINSILBER" image
"SCHLOSS AMBRAS" image
"250 JAHRE TIERGARTEN SCHONBRUNN" image
"SCHLOSS something" image
"PRINZ EUGEN v. SAVOYEN" image
"STADT HALL IN TIROL" image
"BARMHERZIGER SAMARITER" image
"WASSERKRAFT" image
"FURST METTERNICH" image
"K.u.K. KRIEGSMARINE" image
"BENEDIKTINERSTIFT GUTTWEIG" image
"some Latin words" image

The above are some examples. I personally think the descriptions should be as exhaustive as possible, though not everyone will agree. Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, your proposal makes absolute sense, as a coin collector the first thing I am trying to do is to read what is written in the coin and the meaning of it, so I will work on that. Thanks again, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Projected Issue

I think there should be a mention in the article of the projected issues, such as "The Crown of the Holy Roman Empire" €100 coin, source: Austrain mint issue programme 2008 Kevin hipwell (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In principle I agree with you, I will take a look tomorrow and will add accordingly, if you have not already done so ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Weights in ounces

Why not ounces Troy? That's what's marked on the coins. That's what bullion is measured in. Avoirdupois ounces have no place in the tables. --198.49.180.40 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think its to do with the unit converter, you are right it should be Troy Ounces. Kevin hipwell (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources are in grams. I can convert grams to ounces (as shown currently) or grams to ounces Troy, but I can not convert from grams to both (the template fails to do that). I am currently asking in the template page what is the issue that this does not work. The Avoirdupois ounces were asked by an american reader and we felt that it is ok to do the conversion in the article. Your request is also valid, but I do disagree with removing Avoirdupois ounces. I will wait for an answer on the convert template and will change the article once I have a solution. Hopefully the solution will include grams, ounces and ounces Troy. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, we wouldn't have to use the template at all if we really did want both kinds of ounces. I mean, I don't want that, but I'm just saying. Secondly, as an United Statesian myself, can I ask that the other American's request be rejected? If we can have one or the other but not both, let's NOT use the nonsensical one. Nobody anywhere in the world measures precious metals with avoirdupois ounces. That other requestor was ignorant. The article shouldn't suffer for it. --198.49.180.40 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I disagree with you in one small point: not all of our readers are experts in numismatics. You could have a 15 year old American kid looking for European coins, he will not understand neither grams nor ounces Troy. The request came from an administrator (for something else) and he did show me samples of coins having their weight in ounces, not ounces Troy.

But anyway, the template has been fixed, I have changed the first section of the article (Philharmonic series), let me know what you think. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Great Job!, Thanks. Kevin hipwell (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If accepted I will change this article and the articles that use so far the template. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I prefer grams as it is part of the SI (well at least a scale of the SI mass unit) and America uses the same (although in practice they don't) Wikipedia is for the world and should be aimed as so, I do agree that this template be applied for all the articles. I only fear that this weight template will end up in the same controversial boat as the Date template, What do you think? Kevin hipwell (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I do hope it stops right here, there should be no need for no other type of weight. If a British person wants to weight of the coins in "stones" I will pass to that one ;) I used to speak ounces and pounds, but now I use more grams and Kg; so for me is old memories :)

I will move forward to change it in the rest of the article and in the other two/three that uses them. Is a good thing we caught this one "early". Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

2009 coins

Six of nine 2009 coins have the same citation [88]: This information has not been released to the public yet. I guess it must have been released by now, since it's been a year from the release of the last of those coins. Or is it only that anybody hasn't been active updating this page? 82.141.117.188 (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Over use of non-free images

At the end of March 2011, I raised an issue regarding the heavy use of non-free images on numismatics articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images. Three weeks later, there's been no response. My intention is to remove much of the non-free content of coins/notes from this article for violating WP:NFCC #3a, requirement for minimal use, and WP:NFCC #8, since many/all of the non-free images are designs not specifically referred to in the text by externally sourced commentary. If you have concerns about this issue, your are invited to discuss it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see what is actually the end result. Can you point out to where exactly says that these images can not be used? Some of them are circulating coins, some are really important coins. We cannot simply remove all of them blindly unless that is the end result of your discussions. Please let me know where it says to remove ALL images and I will do that myself. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps the point is being misunderstood. Please see Wikipedia_talk:NFC#So_what_are_we_supposed_to_do.3F. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)