Talk:2 euro commemorative coins

Talk page archived

... I hope this helps to read the new talk topics. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Page Contents

I suggest that instead of continuing listing all the commemorative coins in one page instead they should be sorted by years in a table then the user choose the year and the commemorative coins of that year will be shown. Like this the page is becoming extensively long.--Melitikus (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Melitikus, do you see the index at the beginning of the article? Because that does exactly what you are suggesting. Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. —Nightstallion 16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Left and right

The following explanation is given in both a note and a footnote:

Note: In heraldry, directions are often described as they would appear to the bearer of a coat of arms, rather than as they would appear to the viewer. Therefore, the following descriptions will use "facing to the left" when it would appear to the layman that the person depicted is facing to the right.

I know that this is true in heraldry. If you consider the historic use of arms, it makes some kind of sense to have this convention about left and right interpreted from the bearer's point of view when talking about coats of arms.

I did not know that the same convention is used in numismatics. Here on this Wikipedia article is the first time I have seen the heraldic convention applied to coins. There has never been a use where coins have a bearer, this convention makes no sense when describing coins.

Furthermore, the official descriptions in the Official Journal of the European Communities/Union do not follow this convention.

For example: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/c_302/c_30220071214en00070007.pdf (there are many more examples)

The coin's inner section shows an effigy of His Majesty Albert II, King of the Belgians, in profile facing to the left. To the right of this, the royal monogram is displayed and, below it, the indication of the country ‘BE’. Underneath the effigy, the signature mark of the Master of the Mint is displayed on the left and the mint mark on the right, either side of the year. The outer ring of the coin depicts the twelve stars of the European flag.

In this description, left and right are clearly the viewer's left and right, not heraldic left and right.

Unless someone can prove the heraldic convention is actually used regularly in numismatics (which I doubt), left and right should be used from the viewer's point of view (and the note and footnote dropped).

— Adhemar (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional note

Other Wikipedia articles also do not follow the heraldic left/right convention. For example (there are many more examples): Australian 1 dollar coin: Inscription of AUSTRALIA on the right hand side and ELIZABETH II on the left hand side. In this description, left hand side and right hand side are clearly the viewer's left and right, not heraldic left and right.

— Adhemar (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Consider Belgium's first series and Albert II. When we look at this coin, the portrait is looking to the left. However, we are seeing the left side of his face, which means he is facing right (he is also looking to the right and we are seeing his left profile). Another way to think about this is when we look at someone who is looking at us. When we ask them to raise their right hand, from our point of view, their left hand moves. When we stand behind someone and ask the same question, from our point of view, their right hand moves. The same is true of coins. If you hold the coin so that you are behind it, the effigy is clearly facing right. The standards of heraldic terminology are used in the design and production process. However, Adhemar makes a good point that the reference materials do refer to descriptions from the viewer's POV. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 03:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree it can make sense when you are talking about the left and the right side of the depicted subject (especially if it is a person). But my fundamental remark is not really about whether the convention makes sense, it is about whether the convention is actually used.

Consider the description of the Portugal coin at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/c_110/c_11020070516en00050005.pdf

The inner part of the coin shows a cork oak (Quercus Suber). Under the branches, on the left hand side, the Portuguese coat of arms; on the right hand side, the word ‘POR TU GAL’ written on three lines.

Here, left hand side and right hand side refer to the left and the right of the coin according to the viewer, not the tree's left and right side.

My comment here can be considered a form of [citation needed]. I do not dispute that the non-viewer convention is used in heraldry (I have seen it often enough). I want a reliable authoritative citation that in the heraldic convention is used in numismatics (describing coins) as well.

— Adhemar (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another example of the non-use of the heraldic convention: The American Numismatic Society uses the viewer's point of view for the words left and right. For example (there are many more examples): http://www.numismatics.org/exhibits/featured/nerofood.html Obverse: Head laureate right. IMP NERO CAES AUG P MAX TR P P P. Reverse: Annona facing right standing at left holding cornucopiae, Ceres facing left seated at right holding grain stalks; between them a table with modius on top; behind, ship's prow. ANNONA] AUGUSTI [CERES.

— Adhemar (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another example of the non-use of the heraldic convention on mints: Obverse_and_reverse#Coins_of_the_United_Kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.214.17 (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As a numismatist I would like to add weight to the comment that heraldic notions of direction are NEVER used in numismatics. This is true of all descriptions used in any numismatic litterature referring to coins of any age. Thus, from a numismatists point of view the descriptions given here are plainly wrong. If they were provided to any numismatist without the illustrations and he was asked to reproduce the image, his or her drawings would be the mirror image of the real thing.

(Getas75 (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Release date of commemorative Italy €2 2008 & San Marino €2 2008

On the article the release date for the Italian commemorative €2 coin is April, This has also been said to be the release date of the San Marino €2 2008. Are you sure this is correct? The Royal Scandinavian Mint have said that the release date for Italy is October & for San Marino its May. Also the AASFN Philatelic & Numismatic Official Website Appears to back up the San Marino claim as the coin will not be on sale until 20th May. I have not seen either the San Marino or the Italian commemorative €2 on sale,If the current release date of April is true it should be available.Kevin hipwell (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There are essentially two dates for most 2 euro commemoratives and, I believe, most commemoratives in general... an FDI, which is the First Date of Issue and an FDC, which is the First Date of Circulation. While these coins may not yet be on sale and not yet available for the general public to purchase them, they have already been issued. Typically, the FDI is determined by the ECB, but the FDC is determined by the individual national banks. The long and short of the matter is this: unless otherwise specified, the dates published in the Official Journal of the EU (which is almost always the FDI) are used in this article. What would the EU be, after all, without their precious red-tape? Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 06:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats very interesting I think it would be a good idea to mention this in the article, what do you think?Kevin hipwell (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the notes, but not in detail- the detail isn't suited for this article, but if it goes elsewhere in the euro pages, it can be referenced here. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The San Marino 2 euro Comm Coin was issued on the 20th May, according to http://www.aasfn.sm/english/english.htm --Melitikus (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to my comments above. The coin *has* been issued. It has not yet been released. There is a difference. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 03:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Forum

I added a link to a euro related forum, this forum is not commercial and the sole intention is to gather all the euro collectors in one place – is that okey?--Melitikus (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry -- AFAIK, we only link to forums in very exceptional cases. —Nightstallion 15:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

France

seems this is going to be the French Comm Coin for this year http://www.zwei-euro.com/2-euro/frankreich/2008/gedenkmuenze.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melitikus (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of <sup>

First, apologies for my bad edit before, I lost my internet connection right at the moment of doing the edit and the result was garbage being sent out.

I want to discuss about a recent edit, removing all <sup>. As far as I am aware off, this is not a hard standard, and (at least for me) the numbers are by far easier to read. The only thing against is that people need a bit of knowledge of HTML when doing edits; but that does not apply to articles like this one, when a set of editors has been contributing and they have demonstrated the proper use of HTML in the past.

Please let me know if I am wrong on this one. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. —Nightstallion 14:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping that my link to Template talk:Th would be sufficient, as it contains the reasons and links to additional reasons, but I'll try to summarize it here anyway. The rule about ordinal suffixes not being superscripted has been unchanged for 13 months on the official guideline. When an admin brought it up to WT:MOSNUM (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 104#Suffix of ordinal numbers) earlier this month, I decided to investigate and found further reason to deprecate those superscripts. "Easier to read" seems to be the only reason to keep them, but I think it's a subjective argument that is outweighed by the objective evidence I found (in the MOSNUM archive). —LOL (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I read the article, and the strong points to remove the <sup> are:

• Difficult to edit (it does not apply here as mentioned before)
• It creates extra line spacing (so is the references, and this article if pretty well referenced)

I really do not see the reason, and we have a set of editors that keep this article very tight in content. My opinion is that we should respect those editors view, and this is why I have opened the discussion here. If the consensus is "let's remove it" I will have nothing against.

Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite what WT:MOSNUM has stipulated for the past 13 months, this article has been maintained by very capable editors, including at least one administrator, for much longer and has managed to achieve WP:FA status without adhering to the WT:MOSNUM rules regarding this matter. Subjectivity it is easier to read; objectively, the superscripted ordinals style coincides with the official information from which the information contained within this article is gleaned.

Should we have a vote, then? Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 03:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Miguel: Actually, the strong points would be the numerous style guides that deprecate these superscripts.

Theeuro: The achievement of FA status predates the rule's addition by 16 months, so this article could not have been in violation of the rule at the time. Also, the official information's style is insignificant to this article's because it is not a style guide. There are many official sources on the net that use hyphens in the place of en dashes (–), but those are considered errors on Wikipedia.

Anyhow, it does not seem that many other Wikipedians care about this issue, so I don't mind leaving it as is. —LOL (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, and also thanks for your improvements to the article's style! —Nightstallion 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep <sup> as is. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 03:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Aye, keep it. —Nightstallion 13:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Itally 2008

Dear all,

Is Itally 2008 released as written in the article? I am not sure but heard rumors it was postponed until September ...

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Italy's commemorative has already been officially released by the ECB. Please see OJ 2008/C 89/10. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 16:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Finland 2008 - 2 Euro Comm Coin

seems this is going to be - nice coin http://p2.forumforfree.com/viewtopic.php?p=219&mforum=melitikus#219 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melitikus (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

New Side

under the picture of the new 2 Euro coins theres written that all the €2 comm minted in 2007 onwards depict this new map- as far as i know that is not true as there is some countries that switched in 2008 e.g. San Marino--Melitikus (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually didn't Belgium for example adapt the new map but was with a smooth surface instead of a bumpy surface.

So isn't there technically 3 designs or would it be classed as an 'error' design?Kevin hipwell (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

2009 Common commemorative

The recent changes for this issue were removed due to lack of verifiable sources (to avoid a 'citation needed' tag) and the official release has not yet been published by the OJ. The structure of the information was not consistent with the article's established structure. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dates

I notice that one date in the lead and three in the 2009 coinage use the yyyy-mm-dd format. Should these not be change to match the Month dd, yyyy one which is used in the rest of the article, mainly as dates for each coin. Thanks Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, please go ahead. Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as this is a *European* article, it should all be "dd month year" per the European English standard, but due to Wikipedia preferences it's not really too important. —Nightstallion 11:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but only if the date format used in European articles remains "23 July 2008". —Nightstallion 07:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Has Vatican release a coin this year?

I do not think so. the article says yes but it also says October in releasing date. Contradiction there.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually what needs to be fixed is the release date of the Vatican coin, since it was on September 5. Will do that now. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)