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))

I should have done this years ago, but I finally fixed this ugly, consistent mistake. About time. Please do not revert until you can show this notion that there are any numismaticians out there using the heraldic left/right convention with respect to coins.

— Adhemar (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2009 (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)

French version

The french version of this article has images of the edges, that would be interesting to add. Cheers OboeCrack (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also there are images of the Bundesländer series here. Please sb add!!! OboeCrack (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think they are included or placed on other articles, sorry, keep working!! OboeCrack (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

2010

is it still too early to start the 2010 list? there are already some officially announced issues --Melitikus (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Very Long Page

dont you think that the page is getting too long? dont you think it would be a better idea to keep this page as an introductory article and then have links to each year eg 2004, 2005, 2006 .... --Melitikus (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should split it up, no... —Nightstallion 15:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It will keep getting bigger. At what size should it be split? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.232 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I say it should be split now: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 (reg and com), 2008, 2009 (reg and com), 2010 and 2011. Then there could be another page featuring all the various series ie. Bundeslander and the rest. It can't keep getting bigger! It would make it a lot easier to naviagte as well Theinfamousfinatic (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 column and separation on ToR and EMU columns

I think that issue column for 2011 should be added and the ToR and EMU columns should be separated in some way. ~ Illioplius (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you propose for the latter? —Nightstallion 20:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be in separated table — placed under or next to this one. Now there are mixed common issues with normal that is, in my opinion, chaotic and does not give required overview. One table should contain normal €2 CCs and the second one common issues (if it is necessary, since all EMU members issued this coins). ~ Illioplius (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about this idea? ~ Illioplius (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mh. Maybe have them in the same table, but add their columns at the end rather than in the middle? —Nightstallion 19:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For example. ~ Illioplius (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Scheduled and yes

Does "yes" mean that the coin (a) will be released, or (b) already is released? If (a) is applied for the table, Slovenia should be not marked as "yes". If (b) is applied, also Belgium, France, Portugal, San Marino and Vatican City should be marked as "yes". All this countries have already announced themes and, except for Vatican, designs of their future coins. ~ Illioplius (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"yes" means the Official Journal has released the design specifications, which means it is released de facto. —Nightstallion 19:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Commemorative coin Belgium 2009 Braille.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Commemorative coin Belgium 2009 Braille.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image for this article before it is deleted.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I contest this deletion by this robot. In the commons:COM:SPEEDY there is no instructions on how to do this imho. Help! & Thx --SvenAERTS (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2 EUR commemorative coin Italy 2007 TOR.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2 EUR commemorative coin Italy 2007 TOR.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image for this article before it is deleted.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2 EUR commemorative coin Finland 2009 FA.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2 EUR commemorative coin Finland 2009 FA.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image for this article before it is deleted.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Commemorative_coin_Belgium_2009_Braille.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Commemorative_coin_Belgium_2009_Braille.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2 EUR commemorative coin Finland 2009 FA.png Deleted

	An image used in this article, File:2 EUR commemorative coin Finland 2009 FA.png, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Túrelio for the following reason: Fair use is not allowed on Commons What should I do?
	A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to search for new images to replace the old one. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2 EUR commemorative coin Italy 2007 TOR.png Deleted

	An image used in this article, File:2 EUR commemorative coin Italy 2007 TOR.png, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Túrelio for the following reason: Fair use is not allowed on Commons What should I do?
	A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to search for new images to replace the old one. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Commemorative coin Belgium 2009 Braille.png Deleted

	An image used in this article, File:Commemorative coin Belgium 2009 Braille.png, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Túrelio for the following reason: Fair use is not allowed on Commons What should I do?
	A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to search for new images to replace the old one. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2004vat.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2004vat.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2006vat.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2006vat.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2007vat.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2007vat.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Generico Trattato di Roma.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Generico Trattato di Roma.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Should be 2€ instead of €2

Unlike with dollar currency, which is indeed written as $2, the € sign is supposed to be written after the number. Differenxe (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's wrong. Euro sign: ”In English-language use, like the dollar sign ($) and the pound sign (£), the euro sign is generally placed before the figure, as used by publications such as the Financial Times and The Economist.“ —Nightstallion 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on this article

This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note:

• The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use.
• Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible.
• If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought that images of coins and banknotes can (and usually will) be used to see how they look like. And they are not actually overused, just what is needed, not more. 82.141.125.159 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• What is needed isn't every image of every side of every unit of currency in this set. We are not a guide to European currency. We're an encyclopedia. There is a difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Hammersoft, thank you for your contribution. I've read through the "NOTGUIDE" and Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. I want to claim this is not in contradition with these, nor they offer any alternative: the list of 2€ comm coins is not a 1. Genealogical entries 2he White or Yellow Pages 3.Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. 5.Sales catalogs. , 6. Changelogs or release notes , 7. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, 8. A complete exposition of all possible details. If you know of any better and more trustworthy places than wikipedia to have a factual overview of the 2€ comm. coins... let me know. Won't be easy to find and I've been following these 2€ comm. coins for 2 years now. I understand a bit your reasoning, but I do think that if Wikipedia wants to be a "complete encyclopedia" it can and should have a list with explanations of all the 2€ comm. coins. Can't I argue that the pics of all 2€ comm. coins is NOT an list of images of all the 2€ coins, but indeed a specific selection of them? I can imagine that some people wonder if they have a real 2€ coin in their hands because it is completely different from the standard 2€ coins and anything they might have seen before. I can imagine their first idea then is to go on the wikipedia to find out. What is the alternative? Going to every single national bank to find out if it has been coined by them? Sometimes it is not so easy to find what country the coin came from. And are you sure every national bank has like english translation so it is easy to navigate to ? Really ... I use wikipedia for referencing to 2€ coins and pictures... and it is a REAL bummer and waste of time to find other links with pictures. I hope 1. the pics are put back, 2. we'll have at least 1 thrustworthy place on the web where we have a full overview of which ones exist + information on what's on the coin image. If wikipedia cannot give this for a matter as important as this a limited series of a currency for 800 million Europeans... then what is? Wikipedia is the most trustworthy place to integrate pics from e.g. and refer back to ... now with all the pics deleted or just about... this damages the reputation of wikipedia imho, no? Thy for your experienced viewpoints.--SvenAERTS (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The point remains that you would not expect to find a picture of every Euro coin in a dictionary entry for Euro coins. That's because it's a dictionary. The same principle applies to encyclopedias. It's an understanding that is lost on most people. Dissecting "not guide" misses the point. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. OF COURSE you wouldn't find multiple images in a dictionary because their purpose is to provide brief definitions. Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY and the same principle, whatever that is exactly, does NOT apply to Wikipedia. A dictionary wouldn't even have an entry on €2 commemorative coins, much less verbal descriptions, mintage data, and references, so I don't see why the hell the lack of images can be compared. Wikipedia gives in-depth, informative descriptions about topics, which should include all images necessary (and freely available) to illustrate the topic. These coin images are prefectly acceptable for use by enwiki's standards. It's sure lost on you that numismatics is a visual field and images of coins are necessary for understanding. Reywas92^Talk 19:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't say Wikipedia is a dictionary. I was drawing a comparison of what you would expect to find in a dictionary, encyclopedia, and guide. We are not a guide. No, including all images is not a requirement. We have Commons for galleries as needed of free imagery. That Commons doesn't accept non-free imagery doesn't grant us leave to include all available non-free imagery on the subject, just because we can. Yes, it's completely lost on me that numismatics is a visual field. It's lost on me too that music album covers is a visual field, as are book covers, videographies, visual arts, and all sorts of other things. I'm a certified idiot after all. Look, if all images of all coins are necessary for understanding, then provide some secondary sources pointing to the notability of every design. Else, they can't be included. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

let wikipedia die because of these stupid robots deleting everything and neglecting all the effort and time we gave to build up these pages. Much appreciated i see from now onwards if you want information about these coins check the following pages http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/cash/commemorative/index_en.htm http://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/coins/comm/html/index.en.html http://myeurohobby.eu/

I am not going to fight to keep these pages even though in the past i dedicated quite some time to help building them RIP Wikipedia --Melitikus (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia will not die any time soon, thanks in part to the efforts of a great many people who strive to keep copyright encumbrances to a minimum. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In many ways Wikipedia IS more of a guide than an encyclopedia. Which encyclopdia would have separate entries of many bands and singers albums (and singles, for that matter)? Not one. The normal encyclopedias I've read won't even mention all of Bob Dylan's albums. Same goes to this. No encyclopedia would list every coin even without images. Maybe there would be a table like the one in the start of "Issues" section.

But one thing I don't get, is why there are images of some coins? Either they are all copyrighted & non-free, or they're not. And which way they are there is very inconsistent. Netherlands has images for all its coins, Germany has all but one (2009 commonly issued missing), Belgium has four of eight, Finland has three of nine. Only one country is consistent with this, plus of course few countries whose coins haven't got any images. So, is there a reason to include just these images? 85.217.22.105 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of what Wikipedia seems to be, it is not a guide. As to the variances by country, it's because some countries release rights to the images on their coins, and some don't. Each country can decide on their own. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just read the NOTGUIDE you linked. As far as I understand, there is nothing regarding to this coin article situation.

And shouldn't the same reasoning than in the album covers be used here? All of the album covers are copyrighted, but still most of them are there when available. Those are said to be solely to illustrate the audio recording in question. Could somebody tell me what would be the reason to not use that rationale here? 85.217.51.163 (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• You will note, of course, that discographies do not have album covers on them. This in effect is a 'coinography'. If there were a specific article about a specific coin, then a non-free image on that article might be appropriate. Not here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Then why have a part of pictures here? Roughly one fourth of image boxes currently have the image there. I'd say: include all or include none.

The analogy of discography-coinography is sort of understandable. But, I started to check if there are similar articles as this coin article, and first I thought of was 50 State Quarters, and, guess what? It indeed has picture of every coin there, and as I clicked to other U.S. coin series they seem all have 'em. I'm quite sure the U.S. coins also have copyright. 85.217.20.33 (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Slovenia 2010 commemorative coin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Slovenia 2010 commemorative coin.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)