Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:42, 7 July 2008 [1].

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium)[edit]

Nominator(s): Miguel.mateo (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it passes all of the FA 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 Belgian 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. Belgium is the first one of these articles being completely finished, extensively sourced and extensively wiki-linked. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems more (to me) like a list, which goes to Featured lists. A quick note - references need formatting... all internet sources need publishers and accessdates (see WP:FN). {{cite web}} is optional but useful. giggy (:O) 11:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, all references are live so I hope it is OK to put access date as today (based on WP:FN publisher is not mandatory, am I wrong?). About the list, I myself have a debate and I am looking for some quidance, I proposed FA because €2 commemorative coins (a very similar article) is an FA. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I do not mind to put it as an FLC, so shall I drop this conversation here and create it there? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing publishers for most of the references; please add them.
  • Will do later today, I have mentioned them in the name so the information is there. But again, based on WP:FN publisher is not mandatory, am I wrong or publisher should be in all references of a FA or FL? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at WP:CITE/ES. Gary King (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, all internet references have a publisher now, I was putting it in the title instead, thanks for the lesson ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source is the web site of a Belgian euro collector and seller. He also happens to contribute very active in euro related forums which I can not source due to Wikipedia standards. All the information has been confirmed with catalogs which I have not referenced because they are in other languages. Also this particular site is one of the best indicators of market price for the coins, since they sell (whatever they have in stock). Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to FLC, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not listed at WP:FAC. If it is listd, will the nominators please re-sign their declaration with an updated timestamp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend moving this page to FLC; there have been many discussions about moving €2 commemorative coins to a featured list, and no one has gotten around to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind to put it as an FLC, so shall I drop this conversation here and create it there? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've submitted it to FAC; do you want it moved to FLC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
since there seems to be some consensus about it, sure why not. Do I have to do anything? Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

  • You need to put "Belgium" in the Lead section
  • "They are a legacy of old national practice of minting silver and gold commemorative coins." Fragmented
  • What does "unlike normal issues" mean, and refer to? "euro coins minted and issued by member states of the eurozone since 2002 as legal tender" or "only in the country where the coin was issued"
  • Don't start a paragraph with "They"
  • "not really intended" too vague
  • "bullion value" can this be wikilinked to anything?
  • Lead needs expanding. When did Belgium start using the Euro? What's the minting company called?
  • Map is a bit big, considering Belgium is so small. We don't really need to see the Middle East and Eastern Bloc. Can a "zoomed-in" map be found?
We are using the same standard maps that are recognized in almost all articles that refer to the Euro zone. A reader that goes to Belgium will see the same map ... is this really needed? Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Obviously it can be done, but I am more concerned on consistency.[reply]
  • "minted — two" Per WP:DASH, mdashes should be used unspaced. An ndash can be used with spaces to achieve the same meaning. Be consistent with the rest of the article though
  • I think I know what the numbers 1 and 2 mean in the box in the Summary section, but it's not explicit
  • Per WP:HEAD, "Market Value" should be "Market value"
  • "so this coin was the first Belgian euro commemorative coin ever released." Needs to be in a more encyclopaedic tone
Can you give me a sample of what you are referring to? Like Bois du Cazier for example?
That's exactly what I'm referring to. And stuff like "Noord-Zuidverbinding Jonction Nord-Midi". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what "Ag 925 (Silver)" means in Alloy. Perhaps wikilink the header to Alloy, and/or use {{ref label}} and {{note label}} to describe what you mean
  • "'Belgium' in the three official languages" should be double-quote marks instead of single WP:PUNC
We have a catch22 here, and I do need your guidance. Attached to collectors' coins there are three values: face value (the value written in the coin, which is meaningless, just used to identify the coin), the issue value (this is the value given by the mint or the bank when the coin is released, very difficult to obtain for some old coins) and the market value (the value that the current coin has today). This last value is maybe one of the most important attributes of a coin in the area of numismatics. We have discussed about this in the past, and we have agreed that this particular value is very important and should be kept. So in this case it not to be used as a sales catalogue, but as an attribute of the coin. Does that make sense? Do you have any other suggestion in this particular topic? Maybe explaining the terms would help... Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a convincing point here, but who is the "we" that decided this? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, the last discussions about this topic are here and here. We are mainly three editors building the set of articles, one article per country (I was the one building Belgium, but you can see in Euro gold and silver commemorative coins the list of other articles being built). We have in very good shape Belgium, Austria, Ireland and Finland - the last three need to be polished to meet the FL criteria. We have also get a lot of information for France, Spain, Luxembourg, San Marino, Vatican City, Malta and Slovenia (as you see we still have countries to cover). The other two editors are Kevin hipwell and Melitikus.
  • What is "Proof"?
Point taken. Maybe a section on top of all the tables explaining the terms and the values that can found on them (the same for Alloy) would help. What do you think? Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That or wikilinks.
Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exact date of release for the first coin, but a vague year-only for the rest
This is difficult. Not all coins have an exact date, the ones that have them is because the sources give us the exact date. Do you have any suggestion to tackle this point? Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Wikipedia is about verifiability rather than truth. If other sources can be found, that's great, if not, oh well. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you might know, these are images of currency coins. The images 'might' be copyrighted (it really depends on the country), but as the copyright for currency images, they can be used as long as the design is either described or criticized in the article. I hope you understand that without the images this article makes not too much sense (as other list of coins out there). For this particular case, do we have a choice? Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I see the €2 commemorative coins is Featured and has a large number of coin images. I've stricken this one. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's an oppose at the moment. Too many Wiki-guidelines that need to be followed. Additionally, the descriptions for each coin are in need of a good copy edit. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I can make you change your opinion, since I do have a lot of work to do;) I am very thankful for your review and I will be replying to each of the points separately, one by one, little by little. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well feel free to ping me on my talk page. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Why the green and red? What do they add to the article?
Absolutely nothing is added to the article, just a representation of when that particular coin was minted or not. We were following the same standards as the table in €2 commemorative coins. It definitely looks good. Maybe what we are missing is an explanation of the numbers and the colors? Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation of the numbers, but I really don't see the need for the colours. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel they do nothing but art-sy up the article. And it would be a nightmare for someone reading a black-and-white printout of the page. BTW a dash (doesn't matter if it's n or mdash), should be used in the "empty" cells, otherwise it looks like it has information missing.
Done (the dashes for the empty cells) Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the colors I will comment with the other editors, it should respect their decision too. I tried printing in B/W and it looks perfect (like no colors). I also tried removing the colors, and IMHO I did not like it. But will revert as soon as I hear consensus from the others. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, only wikilinked the first entry of every subsection (there are articles having wikilinks to sections in this article, that is why). Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reverse side shows the [[effigy]]" Too many wikilinking brackets

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The list looks great, from a quick look at it, but Devil's in the details, as they say (the Purple Oyster of Doom, in my case). I have located this sentence in the last section: "The unusual aspect of this coin being that the bird itself is actually colored blue!" Exclamation marks are to be used nowhere but in quotations; please ensure that this is rectified (you might wish to rephrase if you consider the sentence less satisfying without the exclamation) and that there are no other breaches of encyclopaedic tone. Waltham, The Duke of 23:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the review. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't thank me just yet. :-) Do you agree that the dates should be in the day month year format instead of the month day, year one mainly used in the United States? Waltham, The Duke of 08:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your compliment and because you did take the time to read it, at the point you found the only exclamation in the whole article! :) About the dates, I read in MOS:NUM#Dates that as long as it is coherent in the whole article, there is no need to change it. I have using month day, year all of my life. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it also says right afterwards that an article with a strong national tie to a country should use the format commonly used by that country. Anyway, I've left the date in the intro intact for the moment. I hope I have not been too drastic with the rest of it; I really thought the language was in great need of a good copy-edit. More improvements could be made, of course, by someone with a better command of the language than myself. Waltham, The Duke of 08:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much indeed, I am sure that Matthewedwards will like it more the way it is now. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing all the points you mentioned in the leading section, after I added all the info Waltham did a great copy-edit, that is what I refer too. I am sure you would not like what the leading section was before his changes :) Miguel.mateo (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I haven't checked the diffs to be honest. I agree with his date formatting concern though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, all dates have been changed. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "...coins in average ..." - on average?
    • "twenty-seven" - MOS suggests 27.
    • Probably worth noting in the lead the usual symbol for a euro since you use it in the second section without specific linking to euro.
      • This one I do not understand, euro is linked in the first paragraph of the lead section, do you mean that it should show the symbol as well?
        • Yes, I'm saying that people not familiar with the symbol may not understand that it's the same thing, so I'd link it in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • legal-tender or legal tender. Be consistent.
    • Remove spaces between references and text.
    • Why two market values 10 cents apart? There must be a better way of showing the typical variations in value? And did I miss the bit where you said when the market value was established because presumably the market value fluctuates...?
      • Done. We (the editors of this set of articles) have discussed this topic extensively. The decision was to give one or two references as long as they are trusted. Then the date in the reference will show how recent this market value is. These coins are fairly new, and their market prices had varied little, some of them as soon as they were sold out in the mint shops changed their price but that is all. I have changed a couple of prices not to show such a small difference. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Noord-Zuidverbinding Jonction Nord-Midi” (North-South connection, interjection Nord-Midi)" - no comma on the coin..
    • If Nord-Midi is one of the most famous intersections in Belgium why doesn't it have an article?
      • Done. Althought I can not answer your question (it was my opinion that it should), I have changed the texts to avoid it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should consider the {{convert}} template for us imperial measurement fans, for both diameter and mass.
      • Done. Thanks for the trick, I have been looking for it for a while. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why isn't Tintin linked on its first use?
      • It is, in the topic name, regardless I have wikilinked in the text as well so it is easier to be found, hence Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As a result, Europa has been used frequently as a symbol of Europe. Statues of her and the bull, are placed outside several European Union institutions, the €2 Greek euro coin also pictures them. Europa's name appeared on postage stamps commemorating the Council of Europe, which were first issued in 1956." need citation.
    • Link, expand or explain GDP which you use only once.
    • Shouldn't low countries be Low Countries? And it could be linked.
    • "The stadium hosted 70,000 at the time." 70,000 what?
    • " "Belgium" in the three official languages is displayed ..." does this really need to be repeated for every single coin?
      • For this I do need advice, it is the description of the coin and can (but should not) be omitted. I do recognize that reading the article from the beginning it sounds repetitive, but there are links in several articles in Wikipedia to sections in this article, referencing one particular coin. People that follow these links may be interested in seeing the details of just that specific coin. The same applies to those that search for coin details and get forwarded to this article by the search engine. IMHO, I do not think that people normally will read the article from the beginning to the end, but instead they will look at what they are interested into, and read that portion. What do you think?
        • Yeah, it's not a deal breaker for me - I did read the whole article from beginning to end and thought you could just have a note in the lead or just before the table saying that all coins show Belgium in the three official languages. But I'm not fussed either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "1547 - 1606." should use en-dash to separate years.
    • Formatting issues with [[Bois du Cazier]] at Marcinelle.
    • "'ergé " red links. Why?
    • Is the plural of euro euro or euros? Seem to be interchangeable in this list.
  • These need to be resolved quickly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Improved greatly since the FLC began. Could also make for an interesting WP:FT in the future. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Matthew, bringing all the articles to FL standard is our current goal, definitely the Behag goal is to reach FT. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • There seem to be a few small inconsistencys, the coin with topic "Justus Lipsius" the gold and silver coins have one description, this don't seem to have been done for topic "Maurice Maeterlinck" instead it has 2 descriptions with the second stating "This coin design is similar to the 10 euro Maurice Maeterlinck coin" I don't see why there is a need for 2 descriptions and then not give 2 descriptions, this is repeated for the topic "Olympic Games 2008" this time the gold coin has a bit more info (although not really a description), Finally the topic "Olympic Games 2008" & "2008 Olympic Games" should they not both be either or.Kevin hipwell (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, it's pretty good, but was overlinked. Still is. Autoformatting of dates is no longer encouraged, and here, the high-value links need to breathe. Please see WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT on this issue, plus the trivial linking of the names of well-known countries and cities. Why is "proof linked 100,000 times? Just once is enough. TONY (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that overlinking is the case for this article, was gonna mention that yesterday because of the "euro coins minted" double link on the first sentence, also why is Alloy linked more than once?. TONY I don't see in the WP:MOSLINK or WP:CONTEXT that "autoformatting of dates is no longer encouraged" can you please point out to me where this is stated.Kevin hipwell (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you all for the so many contributions: so many edits in such a small time frame for me to digest! As I explained before, there are wikilinks in several other articles pointing to sections in the article (links to "...#2006 coinage" for example), this is the main reason why on purpose I over wikilinked the same terms. As of now, a reader that wants to read about the coin by following the previous sample link for a coin of 2006 will not see the links to "proof" for example. This was my only concern, but if people fill different is OK with me.
  • Satisfied now! TONY (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article has met all criteria. -Kevin hipwell (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Euro_gold_and_silver_commemorative_coins_(Belgium)/archive1&oldid=1126596393"