This is an archive of past discussions with User:Miguel.mateo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Finalizing Design for Gold & Silver commemorative coins
Miguel.mateo I am pleased with our outcome on the design of the articles however there is one more issue Id like to address before beginning to implement the design, initially there was a fifth cell on each coin to act as a spacer, in the later designs you removed that cell, I think we should keep the spacer as it can be confusing to see if the design info is for the coin above or below I also feel it allows the article to breath.
What is you opinion on this?Kevin hipwell (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry also the issue regarding the <center> tag, the tag works in IE but does not in FF, Its not a big issue but I feel its notable to mention.Kevin hipwell (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Kevin, you are right about the space between the coins, let me add it. What is the issue with the <center>, meaning, what information is supposed to be centered that it is not in FF? Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey I was wondering if you knew if the Finland,France,Greece,Italy, & Slovenia Treaty of Rome €2 coins were ever issued in proof quality?
I have them in BU quality, I have checked on the different shops and it seems sold with the Proof set for 2007 for some of them. I am not sure if that helps. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Tokyoto
I don't see why the theoretical parsing of "To-kyoto" has any importance or relevance, and you didn't provide any sources to say why it does. Please discuss on Talk:Tokyo if you disagree. Jpatokal (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Malta
Hi Miguel. I would gladly help with the map. What is it in specific that you would like to do?
Just have a look at this map and let me know if you like it. Regards, Meander₪10:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi 3meandEr, I think is great and it is consistent with all the other maps. Please upload it and let me know the name so I can change a couple of articles. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion: This is just my opinion, and in no way a dictate, but maybe it will be helpful.
I tend to agree that except in rare circumstances the coin images don't belong in the composer's articles, as they just don't have that much to do with the actual person. On the other hand, a run of commerative coins is IMO sufficiently notable for an article or a subpage under a commerative coins article, and I wouldn't ahve problems with the descriptions and images in such an article. I also would not have problems with one sentence in each composer's article that "in 200x the government of Y issued a commerative coin for this person" or the like. That sentence should go in some reasonably standard place near the bottom of the articles; again IMO.
There may be a few special cases where having the coin image or a fuller description in a person's article might be appropriate. But I can see that easily being a matter of opinion, and something that would end up in a tug-of-war between multiple people. I can also see that it is something that someone might agree to, and then later change their mind about, one way or the other. Its my opinion though that in general articles about people should be about the person and not about what other people thought about the person long after they died. From that point of view, a commerative anything issued years later might deserve a small mention, but generally not important enough for a full paragraph or image. Loren.wilton (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Loren, I completely understand your point and I agree with it. I have been putting those references in the "See also" section, or in "today's life" if the article has it. For the composers, it is just an image with the reference and not sentences, and I am OK with that too. What I am not OK with is that a group of people did a whole discussion about the topic, rechaed an agreement, and then one of the users that voted for "removal" also removed the same content from another set of articles. That behaviour, I do not think is correct. Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It may not be correct, but as this is the (I think) first time it has been done, why not assume good faith. I can postulate (and I have not looked at the discussions that went on) that the editor was not really happy with the idea in the first place, but figured it couldn't hurt to try it on one article. Then he saw them appearing on lots of articles and said to himself: "no, that's it, I wasn't happy in the first place and I honestly believe these are detracting from the articles, they are gone." I can imagine myself possibly doing something like that under similar circumstances. And all of this is OK. People can change their minds when more evidence is presented. But you can still negotiate for a compromise.
I would read this as saying: "ok, pictures are just too much for some people. Let's see about text." The See Also section seems like a good place for such things, possibly adding the section if it doesn't already exist. (Be warned, someone will come along and decide it is silly to have section with only one thing, and so rip it back off of some articles, a bit more negotiation will be required.) I don't think a 'today's life' section sounds like the appropriate place, just from the title, and I can perhaps understand that this resulted in the original complaint I saw of "putting them just anyplace" or something like that.
How about giving me an example here of the wording and where you would put it in some particular article, along with the name of the article? I'll take a look and see if that seems like what I would think is appropriate and give you an opinion on that? This isn't the same as negotiating with the people that spend lots of time at the various articles, but I think it might give you a leg up on getting things inserted.
I'd also encourage you to start some pages (if they don't exist) on some of these commerative coin series, and put the images there. Since it says somewhere that "wikipedia is not a list of things" you will have to describe who issued the set and why it is important rather than just listing the coins. But I think it would make a good article. Loren.wilton (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Loren, thanks for doing this. Please take a look at this very recent samples:
My point is that after having a discussion in the article Joseph Haydn, the user User:Opus33 removed the content in two different articles, weeks after the discussion, within exactly the same context. That was done without any warnings and without any talk page. Then when I reverted those changes, and asked him in his talked page why, now I am pushed to put an exactly the same discussion in the third article my contribution was removed. I do not think this is good behavior, and it does seems to be some sort of personal attack.
The only thing in question about my contributions is are they relevant enough to the article, and by reading WP:REL, I do believe they are. I have been putting my comments in the very bottom of the article, so his comments of "all over the place" are not correct either. Again I have been open to change the texts, remove it, change the description of the picture ... etc. The behavior of blindly removing content just because "they do not like it" is what I do not agree with.
BTW, all my content is references within Wikipedia, no one single instances of reference outside of it.
First, I don't think there is (yet!) any personal dispute going on; I think it is just a simple content dispute so far. It may seem personal, but my reading (so far) is that while there is some exasperation on both sides, it is more like "I wish you wouldn't do that" rather than "I don't like you". My reading is that Opus33 wasn't completely convinced in the first place but decided to let it slide, but then when more coins showed up he decided it was time to put his foot down. Which, as I said above, is ok - people can change their minds. You may be able to get him to change his mind back. Or may not, in which case if you really want the images in articles where he is active, you may have to convince more editors to your side and eventually get a consensus that outweighs Opus33's opinion. Or you may be able to get him to agree in some places and not others. Remember that no matter what WP:REL says, everything ends around here in consensus: can you convince the other editors? Appealing to their better natures (even if you know they don't have better natures :-) almost always works better than citing rules.
On that subject, it occurred to me while I was at dinner that some people may consider these completely trivial and inappropriate for various articles. Look at it this way: suppose Crackerjax had a Mozart tin whistle prize in a box, or Wheaties did a Hayden commerative boxtop. Would those be worth mentioning in the Mozart or Hayden articles? Almost certainly not, though they could well be worth mentioning in the Crackerjax and Wheaties articles. I can see people thinking the same way of commerative coins. So you will probably get some pushback along those lines, and coin info will probably from time to time get reverted (possibly even in mass) with that justification. When that happens you should be prepared to go to the talk page and describe why you think the coin belongs rather than just reverting, even if you have made the explanation a half dozen times before. (Of course if it keeps getting reverted in some article, common sense would suggest it is time to give up -- maybe the other people are right.)
As to the examples you gave, I can see why it doesn't belong in Satellite, but would certainly belong in a coinage article on the series. I'm personally of the opinion that the TV coin doesn't really belong in Test Pattern, but would reasonably go in TV or History of Television or the like. Of course the description could have a link to Test Pattern in it. The Maeterlinck references seem fine to me, although I corrected some spelling errors in each. I'm guessing that your primary language is Spanish (or one of the other romance languages), so this is understandable that some could occur. If you have a tool to help spell check it would be a good idea to use it -- there are people around that will revert perfectly good content just because it has spelling errors.
In the Albert II of Belgium article, I felt that the coin simply doesn't fit in 'see also', so made a new section on coinage. I can imagine that someone will decide this is inappropriate and remove the section, and I'm not totally sure they would be wrong -- the coin has more to do with Belgian Kings in general than Albert himself. Looking at the page, it might make sense to add it to the Gallery section -- it is an image of Albert. Also, I'm a little unsure of some of the wording in this case. Do you really mean that it is common to have a king on a coin, or should that have been is not common? I really can't tell from the next two sentences, all three seem vaguely contradictory. If you really mean it as it is, a little rewording would help.
Summary of the above: I can see you will be able to get coins in a lot of articles, and I can see there are some where they won't go. And like everything around here it will change with time, and some will probably get deleted later -- possibly even in mass when some new editor decides they are all inappropriate and removes them all with no discussion. Some you will be able to easily get back, some may be harder or impossible. Personally, if I were doing this, I would put them where I thought appropriate, but where others do not object, and be prepared to have them disappear instantly, or days or weeks later; and when it happens do the convincing to get them back. But I would not put a lot of effort into that, because some of them will go away for various reasons. Were I doing it, I would devote most of my effort to doing articles specifically on the various coinage series, and consider putting them in articles as a secondary enterprise. The coinage articles should stay around even if every one of the other references got pulled over time.
Loren, I have thought a lot about your comments and I feel way better now. To you: big thanks and apologies for all the trouble! Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
--Buster7 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)==Hello==
Hey Miguel.mateo. Did you get my reply to your question about references on Belgian Revolution article?? Ive asked another editor to look at my reference notation to see if it is done correctly. It was my first attempt. What do you think?--Buster7 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Buster7, do you know how to check the differences between edits? You will see that I just add the <ref> tags, sorrounding the referenced text. Then the text will show automatically under the 'References' section as long as this section contains the template {{reflist}}. I hope that helps. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Your request
Im not sure I got it right. In fact, Im quite sure that I didnt. Again, the instructions leave a lot to be desired. Having no experience in the process, I was at a loss on how to proceed. And the instructions did NOT call out to me..."hey...you...over here...this is what your looking for...this is what you need to do to give your opinion." Let me know either way. Good Luck with the article.--Buster7 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Basically is checking the article, and provide any comment in the other link I gave you. Apologies, I may be talking in too much wiki-language already ;) but you will be the same in a few months, for sure. Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Miguel. Just to let you know, I've just AfD'd the Malta coin article, you can find the discussionhere. I can tell you that the article doesn't have a good chance of remaining as it is (i.e., in that Malta hasn't actually released any coins yet), so you might want to save a copy to your computer. Alternatively, if and when Malta does release commemorative coins, I'd be happy to just restore the deleted history if you'd prefer to go that route. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikiknights
Hey Miguel...I'm working on a project that I would like to get some input on. It is in the earliest of stages. I am still pondering all the ways that it might lead. Im just putting down daily thoughts and discoveries...using it as more or less a notebook. The end objective is to reawaken dormant editors and have them try a new experience,,,with a different mindset,,,and a different result. Can you please check out my project at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/wikiknights. Thanks...--Buster7 (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) Peer review
