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


 * 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 15:03, 11 July 2008.

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)
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 Austrian 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 Eurozone. 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.

This article already have all suggested changes to promote the sister article Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) to FL, that can be seen here. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Some refs are missing publishers. Gary King ( talk ) 06:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What an eye! There were exactly three references out of 70+ without publisher, is fixed now. ✅ Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with the list, but it would be nice if you could sign your posts, or all the comments may get lost.  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @  '' 07:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, I always do, do not know what happened these two times. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not comfortable with the Market value information. I feel that this violates something to do with WP:NOT but I can't seem to find any actual guidance on price guide type information. Rmhermen (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Rmhermen, we have discussed before while promoting a similar article for Belgium (discussion here). The following is a portion of that conversation.
 * Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, so the market value has to be removed.
 * 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... 
 * You've made a convincing point here, but who is the "we" that decided this?
 * 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.


 * I am also quoting a sentence of WP:NOTCATALOG
 * ... (Wikipedia is not a) Sales catalogs, therefore prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless the price can be sourced and there is a justified reason for its mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war...


 * I hope this clarifies the situation. Thanks for reviewing the article. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that this is a correct interpretation. The section also says "On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices." I think the "rare collectors items" and sourcing was meant to cover a situation like that in List of most expensive paintings. Rmhermen (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rmhermen, after the explanation given before for the nomination of Belgium (already a FL), with all the discussions about this topic in the talk page mentioned before ... still you are not convinced? Can you please provide any suggestions?  You need to understand that this is not just price, it is indeed one of the most important attributes for a collectors' coin (which IMHO I think is a rare collector item). Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That fact that you include multiple "market prices" for some coins and that I can google them and find yet other prices; the fact that you have "market prices" for coins currently on sale, and for coins not yet on sale leads me to believe that this is exactly the kind of sales catalog material that the guideline is taling about. Perhaps an entry on the original issue price is justified but not their current selling price which appears to vary by whatever coin dealer is selling them. Rmhermen (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. "A beautiful design of musical instruments representing...". Doesn't "beautiful" sounds too subjective? Eklipse (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Bottom of the summary table doesn't go far enough - two columns short..
 * "The 2008 Europe Taler" heading - lose the "The" per WP:HEAD
 * "although it finishes almost always in hands of collectors" this sounds like WP:OR unless you can reference it.
 * "world wide" - either one word or hyphenated I should think.
 * "beautiful design" - yes, lose the "beautiful", purely subjective.
 * 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.
 * "„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?
 * "1.25 to 100 euros." - perhaps i'm confused but it looks like 1.50 to 100,000 euros to me?
 * "best selling" - hyphenate
 * "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.
 * "he founded also" switch also and founded.
 * "middle ages" I suspect this is intended to be capitalised, as in Middle Ages?
 * "general view" - just view is fine.
 * "of what it seems to be three" - "what appears to be". Surely this can be clarified one way or another?
 * "250 Years Vienna Zoo" - 250th anniversary of Vienna Zoo?
 * "1752-2002" en-dash.
 * " of course, " - remove this.
 * "in the zoon" - typo.
 * Okay, I'm probably about 15% of the way through and almost all of my comments are typos or grammar or things that would be picked up at a peer review. I strongly recommend you withdraw this (although it's entirely your choice as other editors have gone to the trouble of making comments here) and take it to peer review when these simple things can be fixed.  Then return to FLC when you've updated the list.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.