Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)/archive2


 * 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 06:56, 4 August 2008.

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)
previous FLC (15:03, 11 July 2008)

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. Also, as a result of a previous FLC nomination, the article was heavily copy/edit'ed by a lot of editors, that can be seen in the history of the article.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: possibly the largest non-free galley on this site! Please clarify the copyright status of these coins in Austria. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We always have this type of concern. These images depicts a unit of currency. Some currency designs are ineligible for copyright and are in the public domain. Others are copyrighted. In these cases, their use on Wikipedia is contended to be fair use when they are used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself. Any other usage of them, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.


 * Since the article is about describing these coins (including the design), we have no copyright issues. The same applies to an already FL Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) and another FA €2 commemorative coins. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am uniterested in some generic discussion of the issues regarding "Some currency designs ..." copyrights. I am interested in the copyright status of the images specifically in this list. oppose Fasach Nua (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To Miguel mateo, do note that if the images are copyrighted, then the sheer amount of images in the list is a violation of WP:NFCC, and they will probably have to all be removed. A single image in the lead to demonstrate the appearance of a commemorative coin would be fine though. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sephiroth & Fasach Nua, I have read carefully WP:NFCC,, and each of the images fair-use rationale. IMHO all images meet the 10 criteria to be included in Wikipedia as fair-use.  Nevertheless, I am willing to look for information to see that there is no copyright on these materials, and if any, that Wikipedia is allowed to display it. Please understand that if you were correct almost all images of coins in Wikipedia will need to be removed, almost all of them have  in their license. Any help in how to start this process? Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware that each image has a good fair use rationale and that all of them will have to be removed. For a more specific point, see Non-free content. An image of the individual members of an entire list is clearly not acceptable. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 06:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sephiroth, I really disagree, but you seem to be more an expert than myself in this topic. Why exactly are you saying that all of them will need to be removed?  I just read carefully that section, and I do not see why.  Also, what is the meaning of  then?  Is this license explanation incorrect?  And going back to my previous point, how can I make sure these images are copyrighted or not?  I was under the impression that a fair-use for currency images is OK to be used within Wikipedia (based on the previous license).  As I said, if you guys are correct (and I am not questioning that), then pretty much every article in numismatics in Wikipedia will need to be revised and images will need to be removed.  There gotta be another solution.  From a numismatic stand point, describing the coin without seeing it, it makes no sense at all.  Have you ever seen a coin catalog without the pictures of the coins?  I am just trying to understand your view. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is the amount of copyrighted content. Excessive amounts of copyrighted content is never appropriate, and in a list like this, having a fair use image for every single item in the list is merely decorative. WP:NFCC stresses minimal use and this is the opposite of minimal use. Again, the fair use rationale itself along with Non-free currency is fine. All of them are fine. Sorry, but NFCC is pretty non-negotiable in situations like this. Would the article look better with all the coins? You bet. Is this explicitly against Foundation policy on the issue? Yes. As such, I would recommend removing the images and placing a single image in the lead to demonstrate the appearance of a commemorative coin. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 18:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the fact that this article makes sense without any images, and I am sure that the numismatics community will disagree too. Each coin is being described, from the physical point of view (weight, alloy ... etc.) and from the design point of view (both obverse and reverse).  That covers the fair use of each of the item.  Is there any difference between having this article or creating one article per coin?  I think that what it needs to be addressed is can they be used as fair-use (I think it can based on everything I have read so far but you seem to be the expert) or how can the license problem (if any) can be addressed. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the issue of the licencning is sorted out, FU might not even be an issue Fasach Nua (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I followed Fasach's advice and all pictures I can find of these coins in German Wikipedia, are free to use (which gave me the idea that maybe there is no copyright). I went to the Austrian Mint website and found this line (it is difficult to find, there is no Legal section per say, but it is in several places): "Leagal statement: All pictures can be published without naming the Austrian Mint as the holder of the copyright". Does this mean that this discussion is over and I can change all licenses as free to use based on that statement?  Advice please Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Advice (per request): provide a link to the official Austrian Mint site (with access date) for each image (sorry about the extra work).
 * Two issues
 * Team playing: Fair use of non-free images, in general, does consider factors like quantity. Hence, good faith editors will often have good reason to ask the question that has been asked above, and they need to know: (a) that this question has already been asked and (b) that a reliable source outside Wikipedia has settled the matter. Documenting this is a matter of educating good faith editors, and is best practice for the sake of co-operative editing and reader confidence.
 * Being legal: legally coin art is Public Domain. There are various rationales for this. One is that the practicalities of legal tender mean that images on vending machines and in other places are simply a matter of commercial necessity. The government changes coinage at will, it doesn't impede the economy by copyrighting images of what it has deemed to be legal tender. Copyrighting legal tender would be exceedingly hard to police, counterfeiting is the more important issue—production of realistic replicas. Finally, the government contracts and remunerates artists on the basis of their work becoming PD, waiving collection of royalties as a potential source for reducing up-front payment.
 * But whatever the rationale, the fact remains that coins, by virtue of being legal tender, fall into a special class and are public domain worldwide (there must be an exception, but I don't know of it). As PD the fair use of non-free image issues of quantity do not apply—any number of public domain images can be published.
 * It is precisely because of the above that the Austrian Mint has the statement that it does. A better solution for this issue is to document somewhere that coin art is public domain. The only copyright issue is the photographic process. Typically, government photographs are also public domain, since they are paid for by taxes levied on the public. In other words, those who use government photographs have actually already paid for them.
 * I hope this clears up why both parties above are absolutely right in the positions they have taken, and yet there is room for both of them to move towards something lasting and helpful for Wikipedia. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Alastair. Basically you are saying that nothing needs to get done about the images, and potentially they should be changed as public domain?  Also please note that all coins in the article, without an exception, they have a link to their respective subpage in the Austrian Mint website (I just fixed the only one missing) that can be found in the name of the coin. Best regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Alastair, your statement seems quite plausible, if coin art is PD then perhaps a template would be in order linking to the source that can WP:PROVEIT to be the case. This template can be added to all coin images Fasach Nua (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Answer (to above): Others know more than me, Fascah Nua, but here's the link to the Template:Non-free_currency. That seems to be saying some money is PD and other money should be acceptable Fair Use. In other words, either way we can use "stock" images of currency. The quantity issue is probably covered by Wiki restricting Fair Use to articles related to the money depicted. So, for example, copies (unless PD) decorating User pages is not acceptable Fair Use. Given that Wiki deems articles on commemorative coins to be better served by lists than short individual articles (and I agree), this means the Fair Use is concentrated on a few pages, rather than distributed across many. Either way, Wiki is generally only using each image once.
 * So, again, usage does seem to be in line with policy, others have documented this for us. The question was a good and important one and will be asked by concienscious or curious editors again, but we do have an answer. It's OK. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see the image issue resolved. Now, a question: Although all coins are assigned a Market value, the Vienna Philharmonic Coin is given a Market Price. Is that intentional? Waltham, The Duke of 10:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ A small typo (good eye!), thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose the image issue has not been resolved, the images are still tagged with a meaningless copyright tag, and no external evidence has been presented that the images are available under a free licence Fasach Nua (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fasach, I thought you said you will built a new template with all the information provided here, only then I can do the tedius work of changing the license template for almost 200 images. Let me know if I understood incorrectly. Is there any other template I can use to change all images? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good, good. And another thing now... You may have seen it coming, perhaps not. What would your reaction be to my de-linking the dates? It won't affect my attitude towards the list, of course, but I consider it an improvement. It has been successfully done to the Belgium list, after all. Waltham, The Duke of 11:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Promise me that once this is finish you will tell me where you buy your glasses! :-) There were four linked dates in more than 100 dates all over the article ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great teamwork...a success story. Congrats to all involved--Buster7 (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The first date on the page was linked, so I assumed that all of them were. Now you can stop with the compliments, Miguel... :-D
 * This, of course, is an admittance that I have yet to check the entire page. I'll try to do it in the following hours. Waltham, The Duke of 13:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments while you guys sort out the FU issues, here are some comments on the list.
 * "though a €100,000 coin was minted in 2004" - the "Vienna Philharmonic Coin" is 100k Euro but was best selling in 1992, 1995 and 1996? ✅ I hope is better now. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "although it inevitably ends up in private collections. According to the World Gold Council, it was the best-selling gold coin worldwide in 1992, 1995 and 1996." - citations? ✅ Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "world-famous" - remove, not required - just stick to facts. ✅ Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "fineness" - what is this? ✅ Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "For many, St. Benedict is the patron saint of Western Europe and the father of western monasticism. The directive for monastic life initiated by St. Benedict in the sixth century is still valid today. Together with his sister, he also founded an order of nuns following the same instructions." - need citation otherwise it reads like WP:OR. ✅ Referenced St. Benedict as well ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "1752-2002" - en dash? ✅ Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The two flanked soldiers are a reminder of the unsettled times in Vienna in 1529." - references, further explanation needed. ✅ Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * " brother of the famous Holy Roman Emperor Charles V" - I think famous is redundant here, if he's an emperor of the holy roman empire, he's notable enough. {{done} Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "He had been entrusted by his brother with the government of the Austrian lands and was to succeed Charles V to the imperial throne upon his resignation in 1556." - what relevance does this (unreferenced) sentence have to the coin? ✅ We (collectors) have a tendency to talk a bit of history of the issuing country when describing a particular coin, maybe I went too far with this one. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "most probably influenced the design of the castle." reference please.
 * Okay, I won't go further - I think a lot of the descriptions are a little, well, floral - so they need to be tightened up and made more factual. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reached a point but have had to stop in confusion... Are you using British or American English, Miguel? The two styles are mixed, and although this is only obvious in a few places (at least to me), the inconsistency is there, and it must go. Other than that, the errors were basically minor—I've left a couple of tips in the edit summaries if you're interested—but there must be internal consistency in dialect. On other points:
 * Thanks TDW for the so many corrections. My background is American English, but after working four years for a British boss, I might be flexible and confused once in a while.  Honestly, I have seen people changing "centre to center" and viceversa so many times that I no longer pay attention to it.  How do we control the English style of an article?  I assume a comment in the talk page or comments in the article can help, but people may not read that.  As of now I can imagine that closely watching the changes of an article is the only way.  Any other idea?  BTW, was this fixed or do you still need my attention to address this point? Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose the shuffling of the cells in the "Ambras Castle" table was intentional? It does keep the table tidy, but I don't know about any other consistency issues; perhaps someone with more experience in FLCs can comment here. In the same entry, I don't like "a representation of what seems to be..." Does this mean that it is unclear what the original picture shows? It makes it look as if it is unclear what the coin shows.
 * Some coins are minted in different qualities, which means that different quantities and prices will apply. For those coins we have changed the layout of the table, to make it clearer.  We have discussed that somewhere, and the decision was not to change the layout for all coins, since these type of coins are the minority.  I can find the discussion thread if needed. Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Hall in Tyrol" coin has a suspicious translation: isn't 700 Jahre Stadt Hall in Tirol more likely to mean "700 Years (of) City of Hall in Tyrol"? I am also confused by "giving a distinctive character of this extraordinary issue"; does this mean "giving a distinctive character to this issue" or "conveying (to the viewer) the distinctive character of the issue"? In the next entry, "2000 Years' Christianity" looks as if it might be correct without the apostrophe. What is the name? ✅ Small typos in both cases. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also unsure about the role of the market-value question marks; I'd like an explanation about that (although there does not seem to be a completeness problem).
 * The coins that have a question mark in the Market value are coins that were minted for circulation, means that they were sold to the market at face value (5 euro) However, they generally do not circulate, since if you hold it for a few years you can sell it for double the price.  Since these coins are fairly new, they can not be found, in that quality, in the market yet, hence no market value.  Would it make sense to change that to N/A or "-" or 5 euro? Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is another general issue, and this question is directed to reviewers rather than the nominator: does the accompanying text render "alt" text redundant for the images, or is it still required? There will obviously be no captions.
 * As a final note, I'd like to praise the quality of the images; they are all very clear and... upright. Several images in the Belgium list should probably be rotated a little, and I have no idea about the technical and copyright implications of such treatment. But I am digressing. I shall continue copy-editing after my points are addressed, and at the end of this I am rather confident that I'll give my support. Waltham, The Duke of 17:20, 30 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.