User talk:Miguel.mateo/Archives/2009/January

Image copyright problem with File:2003 Greece 100 Euro OS Common back.jpg

FYI I'm not bringing this up again, but a bot has. Please see Talk:2004 Summer Olympics#Image copyright problem with File:2003 Greece 100 Euro OS Common back.jpg. I though you might like to address this. Thanks. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, issue addressed. I need to catch up with Wiki, so if you have not told me most likely it would have taken me three-four days to fix it, so honestly thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Euro adoption future

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. That's called vandalism if you delete sourced info. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, have the decency of reading who are you confronting, I am not a newbie to place this sort of templates. I have clearly written in the talk page that your sources are not reliable; neither are they saying anything official. Your sources are saying that a group of people not related to the government think that Hungary will not be able to adopt the euro by 2012 as stated by the government. Until a government says so, this date has not changed. Now, go to the talk page and discuss instead of battling your change. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Miguel dude, gobernador del Banco Nacional de Hungría dijo que Hungría no tiene una fecha fija. ¿Entiendes?--Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ingles no es mi problema. Mira a ver si la ultima version que acabo de cambiar te gusta mejor: eso es lo que dice una buena referencia que acabas de encontrar. Si hubiesemos discutido en el talk page esto no pasaria. Ahora, entendes vos la diferencia entre este source que me decis y el source de Forbes que dice 2013-2014? A mi no me molesta decirlo en otros articulos, pero no en ese template. Me podes hacer un favor y escribir todos los sources que dicen 2013 o 2014 aqui? Una vez que tenga yo esos sources veras el buen trabajo que hago con ellos. No te desanimes, yo solo busco la verdad. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm not discouraged, I'm also trying to search the truth. I think we should let - there. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but this is not the original discussion that we were having ;) Please copy here the other sources you cited earlier, I will add them somewhere else. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I will, but later. How come you're EURO fun? I'm very happy and in favour that EUR to be the number 1 currency of the world and replace USD.--Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Later is ok, I will be going to sleep in a few minutes. However, your sources need to be added to at least another four articles, I will let you know. About being a euro fan is partially because of the work and partially because I collect euro coins. How about you? Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want EURO to be the strongest ever currency as it should be: no. 1. Works for me ;) and I don't collect, I use them ;) as I'm proud to be European :) --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly are you from? Just curious ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

From EU. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is obvious, that is why I said exactly ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

From EU :)

BTW, I thought you will be listing all sources you mentioned so we can improve the information in a lot of articles about Hungary. I did not see neither the sources listed nor the articles changed. I honestly want to reflect the latest information, and adding senteces like "Hungary has no official adoption date.<official source> Regardless some analysts say it will be in 2013.<other sources>" sounds perfect to me. Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your option seems very reasonable. Let us do it like that. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal message from BigSteve - Apology

Hi!

I'd like to extend an

Olive branch

olive branch to you, and to unreservedly apologize.

Of course i was harsh the other day, it is impossible to deny - very destructive and very unlike me. if you would be so kind as to read on - i'll try and be as short as...

the main reason i got so angry was because i spent literally two hours (and a bit) looking for sources and, as i said, all i got was blogs/chatrooms.

and i got worried that, those not sufficing, you would still not want to accept the nickname and we would have to keep arguing. and so i took out my anger at my failure to find the sources on you, in a very unbecoming and unfair way.

now i am as much into numismatics as you (i dont contribute to it as i am still learning, but i read on it a lot), and i am very much into linguistics. hence the nickname issue is properly up my street - i am very interested in as many nicknames for as many currencies to be added to WP - even unsourced (remember - WP:AGF)

now, i felt bad the other day - not simply because you had indeed helped me and i was arrogant, but because behind that username there stands a real person and i have insulted them - ie. you. i know how bad i feel when i argue with someone, and arguing over the internet is no different to arguing face to face. therefore, once again, unreservedly, i apologize for the manner in which i behaved.

of course, you have every right to keep ignoring me, for i have insulted you without warrant, but i hope that you will decide to forgive me. i do not want to have enemies on wikipedia any more than you do (although i certainly worked hard at making some the other day!)

if you do, i would be very happy; even if you do not, i am glad for myself that i am honest with you.

i hope you choose the right path, and i also hope that we can discuss those issues left hanging. if you do not - may we at least all be happy and healthy in our lives!

Regards, BigSteve (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

BigSteve, honestly speaking, I just need to catch up with Wikipedia, since I was out for five days and I have more than 800 articles in my watch list, so imagine how many changes I need to review (I do want to see what happened while I was out). So please do not think I was ignoring you. I will be answering to your questions shortly, hopefully within today, and thanks to this nice message from you, I will be answering politely and constructive.

Let me take this opportunity to remind you (and to all the fellow readers of my talk page) to always assume good faith. As you properly mentioned, it is not the same as arguing face to face, so frustration and bad faith can be easily expressed in our words when we write. Assuming always good faith helps all of us to tone down our language, to be constructive and what is really important (at least for me) it helps you to have fun!

Best regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Late Happy New Year !

Dear Miguel, I wish you as a fellow EU editor a successful, healthy and happy new year. I hope you keep up expanding high quality EU content at Wikipedia while also maintaining achieved standards. Keep up motivating others to contribute or to correct EU-European content. Viva Europa Lear 21 (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Lear21, thanks a lot, and happy new year to you too. I wish you, and all the fellow contributors, a prosper 2009. Viva Europa indeed! Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you want to support this: EU inclusion in lists. Would be much appreciated. Even a short comment helps to keep the longterm established version [1]. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Lear21, I followed the links but i am not sure where you want me to comment, it seems like a dead discussion. Can you please ellaborate? I will be gladly giving my opinion: Europe should be included! Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: fixing your page

I remembered this discussion we had a while back after I say what a great job you did on the Greek commemorative coins article. So I paid your user page a visit to see what you are currently up to. – Zntrip 22:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Euro and Sweden

What do you think? -- Iterator12n ^Talk 01:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed my mind, maybe in your favour, maybe even more against ;) I honestly believe that we should add all currencies, not only the ones "on track". I will explain my reasons in the talk page of the article to have the discussion centralized. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Different map

Miguel, can't you put Europe in central map of your travels? :) hope you don't mind my guts.--Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You should google a bit more about Japanese maps and learn a bit more about Japanese culture: for us the map is not centered in Europe, it is centered in Japan. Regardless it will be difficult to make the lines since I always depart and return to Japan and I have never travelled from Europe to America or viceversa. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I still think Europe is the _centre_ of the world.--Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Konrad Adenauer

Please stop vandalism NOW!

I have added Konrad Adenauer's birth and death place, and you removed without any reason - TWICE. If you don't stop vandalism, I'll report you.

Bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.245.108.65 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh please do not report me, I am very afraid of those reports!

I have already said my reasons, but if you insist

1. The information you added does not fit in the area you added it.
2. The information is already said in the article, so why do you need to duplicate it?
3. Where are your sources?
4. Where did you show your reasons for adding that information?

I would suggest you to stablish a conversation in the article's talk page instead of trying to intimidate others ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1.) I actually think that place of birth and date of birth go pretty well together. And I bet there are billions of other people who think like me...

2.) The date of birth is already said in the article, too. So are his chancellorship, his party affiliation and so on, and so on... Why don't you delete these facts?

3.) In the first paragraph, there isn't any source stated. In almost no article is a source of the birth place cited, anyway.

4.) Why should I?

By the way: In the German and in the French article, the place of birth and death are mentioned in the head.

Essence: Either you are an Anti-German or you're obviously a troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.245.108.65 (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You can say whatever you like, my honest advice: bring the discussion to the article's talk page. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

economy of hungary

well, the data are given by my professor of economic transition in cee. I don't know exactly where he took them from, but should be smth like IMF or WB. You put the tag on the top, all right. But don't u think it's a bit too much putting CN tag all over the text?--Desyman44 (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Desyman44,

As long as you have the references I can help you to add it all over the text. We do not need to add a reference for every single request for reference, I decided to add it like that because different references can cover different sections of the text. If you have a book or a website that can serve as sources for those references, please let me know, I can help you to add them back into the article.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Finland images

Miguel - not sure how to send you a message. I updated page of yours last week (IP address 194.125.58.130) Firstly - an excellnt contribution to Wikipedia and to the citizens of the world!!!

I see you are missing the "old" Finland coins from the indivdual 1c,2c,5c etc. pages. there was some message about fair use of the image and I edited that out... and this seems to have fixed it. not sure how that works maybe you could let me know how to post messages correctly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Whbin (talk • contribs) 10:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, good to see you back, and welcome (again) to Wikipedia! I see you have created an account, I am very pleased. Thanks for the compliments and for bringing this problem upfront. I will take a look at the issue in a second and will let you know the results.

BTW, the best5 way to contact me about Wikipedia stuff is through my talk page, as you just did. I typically answer right here unless I ask something different, so I would suggest you to "watch it". Feel free to ask me any sort of questions, if I can answer them I will do that as fast as possible.

PS, do not forget to sign your posts in talk pages, by adding ~~~~ at the end of your comments.

Once again, welcome! Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

North South Connection

Hi, I appreciate your concern for sources as I agree the article needs to be better sourced, however I think you're going a little overboard with the "citation needed quotes" for example, the article states that the N-S connection is partly a tunnel and partly raised above street level. I really don't see the need for sources there as it's plainly visible for everyone who travels on that line. I found a source confirming the 1200 trains per day number, an article from De Standaard, however it's in Dutch http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=GN20U05T The article states that with 1200 trains per day the North South connection is the busiest railway tunnel in the world, this is different from what is claimed in the wikipedia article and we may have to change that. --Lamadude (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for coming back to me so quickly. Do not worry about the "excess" of request for sources, there may be sources that can cover two or more of those requests. I honestly placed them where I felt they were needed but I could be wrong too. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Finnish War

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is the right way to respond to your comment, but anyway. It seemed to me as if it would be somewhat misleading to only have the Finnish commemorative coin imaged and mentioned in the article, but not the Swedish one. I'm not sure that either commemorative coin deserves to be mentioned in the article, and I'm definitely not sure that they should be mentioned under "See also", but if we're going to have one, we might as well have the other. David ekstrand (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked for relevance, since no where in your contribution said that the Swedish coin is to commemorate the end of the Finnish war, as in the Finnish 100 euro coin. Was this the case? If so, then it is relevant and it should be changed so it reflect that. For this case, maybe a new section sounds more appropriate.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll do this, then: I'll set up a new section called "Commemoration" or something, and I'll be more explicit about the commemorative purposes of the coins. David ekstrand (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

TELEVISION

the electronic television invented by a hungarian engineer: Kálmán Tihanyi. Hungary is not an un-innovative latino country. UNESCO (UNS) and patent offices are the most official and inspired orgonaizations , wich decide that who invented the things. Your writings are just un-official private opinions.

Read more about Hungary and hungarian inventors, who made the basics of technology of the XX century

As of 2007, 13 Hungarians (who were born in Hungary) had received a Nobel prize, more than Japan, China, India, Australia or Spain.[51] A further eight scientists (of Hungarian origin on both sides) were born abroad.

Hungary is famous for its excellent mathematics education which has trained numerous outstanding scientists. Famous Hungarian mathematicians include Paul Erdős (Erdős Pál), famed for publishing in over forty languages and whose Erdős numbers are still tracked; János (John) Bolyai (Bolyai János), designer of non-Euclidean (or "absolute") geometry in 1831;[52] and John von Neumann (Neumann János),Quantum Theory, a pioneer of digital computing. Many Hungarian Jewish scientists, including Erdős, von Neumann, Leo Szilard (Szilárd Leó), Edward Teller (Teller Ede), and Eugene Wigner (Wigner Jenő), fled rising anti-Semitism in Europe and made their most famous contributions in the United States.

Hungarian inventions include the noiseless match (János Irinyi), the electric motor and first Electrical generator (Ányos Jedlik), Rubik's cube (Ernő Rubik), and the krypton electric bulb with tungsten (Imre Bródy), Electronic Television and camrera-tube (Kálmán Tihanyi). Ottó Bláthy, Miksa Déri and Károly Zipernowsky invented the transformer in 1885[53].[54] Ottó Bláthy invented the Turbogenerator and Wattmeter, Telephone exchange Tivadar Puskás, Ford Model T and production line (therefore he is the inventor of industrial mass production) József Galamb, mathematical tools to study fluid flow and mathematical background of supersonic flight and inventor of swept-back wing Theodore Kármán. Several other inventions were made by Hungarians who fled the country prior to World War II, including Leo Szilard (chain-reaction and nuclear reactor) first atomic accelerator,holography (Dennis Gabor), the ballpoint pen (László Bíró), the theory of the hydrogen bomb (Edward Teller (Teller Ede), and the BASIC programming language (John Kemeny, with Thomas E. Kurtz).[ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Celebration1981,

I am not in disagreement with you, as you see I did not remove the information you added. We are not in a content dispute. I simply asked for sources to back up what you wrote, since without sources it could be pure vandalism (not everyone that comes to Wikipedia is as knowlegful as you are in this particular topic). considering your recent explanatino, I think it should be easy for you to get some sources to back up that section of the article (they can be books, news, websites). If you need help adding source (it could be tricky) please let me know.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Itt happend, you can found the references about first electronic Televion in History of Television, and the television topic. Tihanyi invented the plasma TV (first flat panel) too in 1936, when other engineers were far behind him. Kálmán Tihanyi was a Genius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw your changes. You might want to help and add sources in the other sections that need them. By the way, please do not forget to sign your posts when you discuss in talk pages, by adding ~~~~ to the end of your posts. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Celebration1981... Please be considerate of fellow editors. Many interactions are at work on WikiPedia. Above, in your opening of this thread, you state; Hungary is not an un-innovative latino country. Such a statement may be, and rightfully so, considered injurious to a fellow editor. There is no need to put down latino countries while attemting to elevate Hungary. Your motive may be righteous but your implemetation is un-civil. I apologize to Miguel.mateo for using his talk to sermonize...:-)--Buster7 (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A Favor

Please see the article Rogers Park, Chicago. How do I get rid of the white space in the center? (by beaches and schools)..As always, your help is appreciated.--Buster7 (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think someone did the trick already, apologies for not being fast enough ;) Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

rE;yELLWO bOX....Yea that would be great if you could fix it. I saw it in my travels but probably forgot to personalize it TO ME! Bedankt...Ill chec out your request in a day or two...TC....--Buster7 (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done and tested. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Question for FL nomination

I asked this question to the current FL committee directors, Matthewedwards and Scorpion:

"My self with a group of other editors have been working hardly in a set of articles that we would like to promote to FL (and potentially the whole thing to a featured topic). We managed to promote one, Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium); but when we started to work on the nomination of the others (specifically Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)), somebody claimed that there are too many non-free images on them. We have since then prepared for nomination the countries Austria, Finland, Malta, Cyprus, Greece, Slovenia and Monaco; while we continue to work on the other countries.

The question is, what is your opinion, as director of the FL committee, about lists that have different non-free but properly fair-use images intrinsic in the character of the list? The images are not there to make the article look good, they are the core existence of the article and without the images the article itself makes no sense. Can you please take a quick look at Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) for example and tell me if it is worth to send it for nomination?"

And I got the following responses:

I'm probably the wrong person to ask, but I do agree with you that the images are vital to the list and I would have no problem promoting the list should there be consensus. You might want to ask someone who is an expert on images for their opinion, such as David Fuchs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer, at least you have given me a lead to follow and just posted a question on his page. I am relief to hear that you understand that the articles do not make sense without the images. I have tried hard to get free images, but it is impossible at least at the current moment where banks are focused in way more serious problems. If the articles can not be promoted because of a technicality (BTW, I just realized it is a guideline, not a policy) it would be a shame, but I am ok if that were the case. Thanks again, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that it's not just my opinion. Even if I said I think its okay, the rest of the community may not. Or vica versa. The article must meet the policy page WP:NFCC and specifically for lists, Wikipedia:FU#Non-free image use in list articles. I saw that User:Alastair Haines went into detail about the use of the images in the Austrian coin FLC. From what I gather, he said it was fine. I think you should ask User:David Fuchs and User:Moni3, who are both well versed in image use policy at the FAC process. Sorry I can't be of more help, regards Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer, at least you have given me a lead to follow and I will do that in a second. At least I hope you understand that the articles do not make sense without the images, and I have tried hard to get free images, but it is impossible at least at the current moment where banks are focused in way more serious problems. If the articles can not be promoted because of a technicality it would be a shame, but I am ok if that were the case. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

PS, I am trying to centralize the conversation in one page so it can be used as reference, can you please express your comments here: User_talk:Miguel.mateo#Re:Question_for_FL_nomination? I do not mind if it is simple copy/paste of this conversation. Many thanks in advance, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As requested, I have asked the following question to David Fuchs, Moni3 and Elcobbola:

"I got to you referenced from one of the directors of the FL committee and I have a very important question to ask.

My self with a group of other editors have been working hardly in a set of articles that we would like to promote to FL (and potentially the whole thing to a featured topic). We managed to promote one, Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium); but when we started to work on the nomination of the other articles (specifically Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)), somebody claimed that there are too many non-free images on them and the whole process froze. We have since then prepared for nomination the countries Austria, Finland, Malta, Cyprus, Greece, Slovenia and Monaco; while we continue to work on the other countries (we have good progress in Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain, Vatican and Luxembourg for example).

The question is: what is your opinion about lists that have different non-free but properly fair-use images intrinsic in the character of the list? The images are not there to make the article look good or to ilustrate the topic, they are the core existence of the article and without the images the article itself makes no sense. Can you please take a quick look at Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) for example and tell me your opinion on the usage of the images?

I do have a strong view about it and I think that we can still be within the guidelines of non-free images use in list articles. I am willing to have a discussion on each topic of that guideline if necessary. Can you please let me know what your opinion is? I would love to centralize the discussion in one place, but I want to know what you think first.

To which I got the following answer:

This is tricky. I would shy away from reading too much into the lists section you quoted on my talk, as it's application, but not the rule. WP:NFCC is pretty clear on excessive use of fair use—Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) clearly fails the 3a clause of NFCC. That said, I think elements could be removed without butchering the article. Put it this way: for the Vienna Philharmonic section, you have two images showing silver and gold backs to the coins, and all the following are the fronts. The only thing that changes on the front is the color, and the only thing on the back the denomination. The simple reduction in use is to keep only two images: a gold back, and a silver front of whatever denomination. As long as it's stated in text, you've dramatically cut down on images and still fall under significant. The rest gets trickier, as there's no easy way to remove redundancy. My suggestion is to take this to the Grand Wizard of Images, Elcobbola (you might want to contact him on his commons.wikimedia.org talk page rather than the wikipedia talk.) Just provide him the links to all relevant talk page/discussions and your summation and I'm sure he'll get to you in a timely manner. (Just be nice). Regards, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for coming back to me so quickly! I do agree with you on the Vienna Philharmonic section, and I am willing to do the changes. But I am almost convinced (although I can be wrong) that the rest of the article does not fail the 3a clause of WP:NFCC since each coin is used only once; and for me (and I hope a vast majority of the numismatic community) not having the images implies that the article is meaningless. I will follow your lead and see what we get out of it. Many, many thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Miguel.mateo, I apologize for my belated response. I haven't kept (meaningfully) abreast of copyright issues with Euro currency, as I haven't really lived in countries on the Euro since its introduction (€ frightens and confuses old folks like me; DM is missed). I'm still attempting to look into the relationship commemorative coins have with Münze Österreich AG and the ECB in the hopes they might be free "enough" like the general circulation coins (per CftC 2001/C 318/03). That notwithstanding, as the article is, there is indeed an issue with over use (NFCC#3A).

Looking only at the first illustrated section, for example, why are both File:Austria Vienna Philharmonic back.jpg and File:Austria Vienna Philharmonic Silver back.jpg needed? I suspect our readership is intelligent enough to understand the difference between a gold and silver coin without the need for two non-free images. The only difference I see (other than colour) is the word Silber (silver); surely this is not a significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8). Also, as another example, why are all denominations (e.g. File:Austria 100 Euro Vienna Philharmonic front.jpg, File:Austria 50 Euro Vienna Philharmonic front.jpg, File:Austria 25 Euro Vienna Philharmonic front.jpg, etc.) needed? We don't seem to need multiple images (NFCC#3A) to understand (NFCC#8) that the same image of the Philharmonic is used with varying face value and weight (Unze: ounce). There seems a lot of work to be done to satisfy NFCC. Эlcobbola _talk 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your answer. User Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs said exactly the same and I agree that this section can be reduced to two images: one obverse and one reverse, since it does not dramatically change among all coins and two images are enoguh to represent what is being said in the article. However, what about the other sections? Each image is different and only one images is being used. I am very looking forward to your opinion about this particular area.

Also, I pointed out Austria because this is where the image discussion started, but our ambition is to have a similar sets of articles for every country in the Eurozone (we already have in good shape, ready to be in the FL nominee: Austria, Finland, Greece, Monaco, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus.) You can take a look at those as well if needed, but they are structully the same, just the content is different.

Thanks once again, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean that if I remove the images that are almost the same (as suggested) I am within complaince of the (NFCC#3A) and (NFCC#8), so this article can be nominated for featured list? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Miguel. mateo, I'm all but retired, so I'm checking WP somewhat infrequently and, as a result, the {{tb}} template was lost to me in the edits that followed. Apologies, again, for my delayed response. As I'm retired, I'm no longer doing full reviews and am essentially just sticking around to answer questions on individual images and general copyright/policy issues.

In my mind, there is a difference between conveying understanding and conveying information - the former of which is the NFC Criterion 8 requirement. In list articles, therefore, I struggle to see the significant understanding conveyed by non-free images of every last member of the list. The coin articles seem, in this regard, analogous to discographies, which are explicitly disallowed from using an image of every last item (i.e. album). I understand prefectly well the need to use one or, in this case, two (front and back) non-free images to convey understanding (e.g. the general layout, style, etc.), but, after that, additional images seem to only really provide information, not understanding. My thoughts would be to use free versions of the subjects being depicted; for example, The Joseph Haydn coin could use an image of Castle of Esterhazy and an image of Haydn. Эlcobbola _talk 23:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your deep explanation. IMO, and quoting NFC8:

• "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

I think that not placing the image of the coin or substituting it with images of what the coin represents (as your porposal) it definitely detriments the understanding of what it is being explained. Coins could be complex, different elements in different places ... etc. Look at Hydn as in your sample, I have never seen a portrait of Hydn like the one depicted in that coin, putting another picture of him will not help to understand neither to identify the subject being described.

One of the guidelines of the policy says:

• Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject.

Those images are core to identify the currency, not the subject being depicted in the currency. With all your respect, since you are definitely the expert in the area, the images of those coins should not be compared to images of discography, where the image of the album is not as relevant as the content of it.

I think we are in the same undersanding, but I think we should define if NFC8 applies or not. FYI, the license of those coins explicitely said they can be used in Wikipedia, and I am citing:

• This image 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.

I think the fair use of those images is in policy, I am more concern in the number of non-free images used within the article. I was not challenged in the past about the licenses of the coins, I was challenged about the number of coins used in the article. So I think that it passes NFC as long as I guarantee the minimum number of images is used, which is one or two, as you properly said, per coin.

What would you suggest we can do next? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Miguel.mateo, I don't know that I have anything more to contribute. We, apparently, have different interpretations of "understanding". I do not better understand Austrian commemorative coins by seeing the front and back of every last version. All that is necessary for understanding is a sampling to convey to the reader the general aspects of design and layout present in the series. The current volume of images is superfluous.

To continue with the Haydn example, seeing the exact same image of Haydn ("I have never seen a portrait of Haydn like the one depicted in that coin") is not important, as we need only convey the general understanding of who/what is depicted. Why is seeing the exact image necessary? What is it helping us to understand? You should probably note that the image's purpose of "Currency picture" is entirely insufficient. WP:FURG requires a "detailed" and "specific" rationale. WP:NFCC#10C, similarly, requires a "specific" rationale. It's not possible to judge what this image is supposed to be accomplishing in the absence of this explanation. You may find the "Purpose writing" section of this dispatch helpful. Эlcobbola _talk 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for a detailed answer. For what I can see, from your angle, as long as the image is properly described and it does help to understand what is being described, you're ok with it. In that case maybe the Haydn coin is a bad sample, Finnish coins will be impossible to understand without seeing a sample. So I am guessing that as long as we are cautious about this topic, you're ok from the copyright point of view. Correct? Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)