Talk:Euro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good articles Euro has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Portal:Germany
 Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Germany To-do:
Former featured article This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Wikipedia CD Selection Euro is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Euro as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.
This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for Euro: edit · history · watch · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:

    Previous Discussions:

    Archive 1(Does Martinique use the euro...Possible dangers in management)
    Archive 2(Old currencies...Latvia ERM Participation)
    Archive 3(Euro/Euros - Non good faith editing...Criteria for joining)

    If you take the symbol for the euro and rotate it 90 degrees leftwards you will find it is identical with the logo for the computer game 'Quake II' which came out about the same time as the euro was introduced.

    Contents

    [edit] Table with joining criteria

    Also, I think that it would be good to have a table with the criteria to join and the non-Eurozone EU members - so to see witch state covers the criteria and witch does not:

    columns: country, EMU-II membership, inflation, budget deficit, (criteria4), (criteriaX), formal opt-out row1: "Euro/Stab&Growth pact requierment", >= 24 months, <= ?? %, ?, ?, ?, NA row2: "UK", 0, ..., opt-out row3: "Sweden": 0, ..., commitment to join (as per EU accession treaty) row4: "Denmark": 6 years, ..., opt-out row5: "Estonia": 1.5 years, ..., commitment to join (as per EU accession treaty) rowX: ...

    199.64.72.252 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    It's a good table, but it adds even more bulk to an article that was already too long. It should really move to a separate article, in my view. Consensus? --Red King 00:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Not to a separate article, please, we already have too many articles dealing with similar topics. Move it to an existing article -- I suggest moving it to the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union, which is more relevant anyway and needs to be expanded anyway. Aris Katsaris 01:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Also possibly Convergence criteria, Stability and Growth Pact --- generally the whole thing is a mess, and many of these articles probably need be combined with the EMU one. Anyway, for starters, you can move the table to the Convergence criteria article. Aris Katsaris 01:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    With a unique heading and a #-type link from this page, then? 惑乱 分からん 15:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    Shouldn't we use the date the country joined ERM II in the column? The way it is now, we'd need to update it every month or so, and if we included dates, we could simply put in the date from which onwards the country will meet this criterion... —Nightstallion (?) 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Removal of conversion fees

    It says: "A benefit is the removal of bank transaction charges that previously were a cost to both individuals and businesses when exchanging from one national currency to another. Although not an enormous cost, multiplied thousands of times, the savings add up across the entire economy." The first sentence might be fine, but the second one seems just palaver. And if the second one is all the support the first one can get, then maybe this argument for the euro should not be included at all.--Wikiwert 15:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

    This is a frequently cited argument in favour of the Euro. In fact it is probably the most obvious and applicable to peoples' daily lives. I see no problem with either sentence. the first says, this is a benefit, and the second says that its a benefit, but not an enormous one. Do you want sources, or simply more detail? Peregrine981 22:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    I just think the "add up" argument is trying to restate the first sentence in a stronger way, like trying to convince the reader, when it really does not matter. However if a reliable source states it, I have not much to say.--Wikiwert 03:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    It should maybe be added that this is less of an argument for Sweden. The Swedish government has connected the crown to the EU treaty about this, and as a result the fee charged for using cash machines to get EUR within the EEA has to be the same as the fee charged when getting SEK in SE. Usually, both fees are zero. For sending money to/from bank accounts in SEK and EUR, most banks are still able to charge fees, although they typically are smaller than the fees for sending money in other currencies, such as DKK to Denmark. Banks still decide the exchange rates, though, so they can make some money that way. Many banks add 1-2% of the total amount as a fee when using a foreign currency with a credit/debit card, and as this fee is part of the exchange rate, the laws don't remove this fee. (218.228.195.44 02:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC))
    What happens with payments and card usage outside the EU, but at places where the euro is the currency (currently Monaco, San Marino, Andorra, Vatican City State, Montenegro, Kosovo and some French non-EU colonies)? (218.228.195.44 02:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

    [edit] Optimal currency area criteria

    I noticed that there isn't any part written about the economic "Optimal Currency Area" (OCA) criteria as put forward in economic theory. These criteria are (mostly): Areas that are characterized by:

    1. High capital and labour mobility. (Robert A. Mundell)
    2. Widely diversified production and exports that are similar in structure between areas. (Peter Kenen)
    3. High openess to trade and that trade heavely with eachother. (Ronald McKinnon)
    4. Fiscal transfers.

    Two notes:

    1. All these criteria stand in relation to the ability to deal with asymmetric shocks (i.e. shocks that only hit one area). (Symmetric shocks are less problematic in a currency area as currency will depreciate as "one area", while asymmetric shocks will create an exchange rate that is too high for one area and one that is too low for the other, causing wage, price and unemployment problems).
    2. Though I have some literature to refer to that analyses the euro, I simply don't have the time to read and write it all right now. Nevertheless, I think this should be a very important part of this page. I hope anyone else has some knowledge, literature and time for this. Sijo Ripa 02:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes and it was badly needed! (I suggested it on 24 August - see "Reactions following the constitution vote" above but don't know enough about it to write such an article. So thanks for contributing Optimal Currency Area - Eurozone. --Red King 23:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    ---

    Hello there! Thanks for the contribution. I just wonder - since most people have no clue what this is all about - if this paragraph could move down a few chapters into the technical details sections... I see people looking euro up and wanting to see a more everyday explanation first?

    Feb 10, 2006

    [edit] euro or Euro?

    There is a major inconsistancy in the way people are spelling this word!!!! In standard American English (and I believe in standard British English) the name of a currency is never capitalized, except at the start of a sentence. But in this article, about 40% of the time, it is spelled Euro. This should definitely be consistent so - according to the precept "be bold" - I will change every Euro to euro.

    Please note that I'm not making up this rule - in the table of fixed exchange rates (with the old European currencies) I only had to change "Mark" to "mark," all the other currencies were properly left uncapitalized. There are other places that use currency names derived from proper nouns, but the only example I can think of off the top of my head is "bolivars." (Definitely uncapitalized).

    Now I could start in on "euro" as the plural, but this actually has some legal basis, though I'm pretty sure that the European Parliament doesn't yet have the right to dictate English grammer.

    At worst somebody can easily revert my changes, but we certainly need to be consistent!

    Consistently yours,

    Smallbones 18:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    In German, all nouns are capitalized, though, so maybe "Mark" is an exception. 惑乱 分からん 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    Of course this is the English language Wikipedia. In English, mark is not an exception. Deutschemark was an interesting exception (I've seen it both ways, but believe capitalized is correct). I think the logic is that it is specifically a foreign word, using the full name of the country in front - like U.S. dollar.

    BTW, of course any word derived from the full form of the proper noun "Europe" should be capitalized, but any word derived from "euro" should not be. So, based on this principle, it looks like it should be "euroland" and the "eurozone" and in general Brits are "Eurosceptics" though they may be "eurosceptics" as well. I'll wait for reactions before trying this out however.

    Smallbones 19:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    Fair point. I guess, now when I think of it, that words like dachshund or doppelganger never are capitalized in English, so maybe that wasn't such a good point.惑乱 分からん 07:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    It should definitely not have capital except at the start of a sentence. If you see any, feel free to edit out. Wiki has many editors with English as a second language and any capitalisation is probably unconscious rather than deliberate. --Red King 15:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Hello - its an interesting subject. I believe the capilalis(z)ed German Deutsche Mark became English Deutsch Mark as a way of respect towards another language:

    For many Germans un-capitalis(z)ing their very own currency (and the € is a continental European currency) is a very disrespectful thing. I aggree on complying with English language and it's Grammar, but in terms of new nouns coming up in relation to European Integration, and English being one of the main working languages in Brussels and Frankfurt, British English is exposed to dynamics which is changing British English and might even evolve in a new Euro English. The ECB website is calling it "euro", but for the public in Germany it will always be the "Euro".

    The Financial Times uses "eurozone" (no cap, no hyphen), and I agree with a previous comment that "Euroland" is a tabloidism. "Euro English" is an interesting concept, and Brussels might (or might not) get the UK and Eire to go along with it, but what about all the other English speaking countries, e.g. Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa, and the U.S. It seems that that vast majority of native English speakers live outside the EU and our language rules should be respected. Please don't be Eurocentric about this, using "euro" is no more disrespectful to Europe than "dollar" is disrespectful to the U.S.

    A comparison in this matter to "dollar" doen't work since Americans call it "dollar" themselves.

    Deutsch Mark is a "foreign term" in English language and the naming of the € is just as foreign to English speaking countries, with the only difference that it is also "Euro English". Concerning the number of English speakers: "Euro English" might well outnumber "American English" and "Commonwealth English" speakers combined but this shouldn't be an argument in the first place.

    I have no intentions to disrespect overseas English language rules, it is more a matter of finding the right balance of language influences in a growing together of Europe and the handling of € is a good example. I can see it being de-capitalized in the future but "Euro" just looks more natural!

    Surely I don't know how French and other European languages deal with the de-capitalization.

    Another thought: "Euro" and "euro" seem to be used in parallel. In the recent past I was paying more attention on how international press and online-articles spell the currency; I have seen plenty of articles where both euro and Euro have been used at the same time with "euro" being used when the currency is mentioned as a currency and "Euro" when mentioned as the currency.
    It makes sense to me as in when talking about it: the currency (especially when having the Euro-bills in mind) it is spelled Euro; and when talking about currencies (in general) namely as electronical (or is it electronic?) means of payment (e g for financial markets) it is spelled euro.
    How does this sound in relation to English Grammar? :-) To my knowledge that s fine; similar to "North Sea", "Baltic Sea" etc and then just "sea". Greetings
    Smallbones, of course the correct spelling of euro is without a capital letter (unless at the beginning of a sentence). The spelling *Euro is a hypercorrection based on the habit of capitalizing the name of the continent. The s-less plural euro has a legal basis, but only because of a screw-up in language planning and foolishness on the part of Charlie McCreevy who was Irish Minister for Finance. The "rule" is to use the s-less plural in legislation because that way the legislation is consistent, but the recommendation is to use the natural plural euros in all other circumstances. The only reason the s-less plural persists is the fact that Irish broadcasters continue to use it. Evertype 08:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Competitive funding?

    Can someone clarify this section? Sijo Ripa 23:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    I think what the author meant was that, prior to EMU, a Spanish (say) company really only had access to venture capital or loan capital denominted in Pesetas, unless it wanted to add exchange risks on top of all the other risks. Now it has (theoretical) access to euro-denominated funds anywhere in the Eurozone. How true this is hard to say, but there is certainly widespread anecdotal evidence that in Ireland, France and Italy (at least), the local banks were running a closed shop, with rates that were far less favourable than were obtainable elsewhere. But I don't know how to say that succinctly. [I didn't write it in the first place!] --Red King 00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


    [edit] To much focus on all those dwarfs and wannabe's!

    What about the economic core of the euro? Shouldn't the article bring out more of that?

    [edit] Phrasing of list of members

    Maybe it's just me, but I have a strong objection to the way in which this (below) is phrased:

    The euro is sole currency in the following EU member states:

    Why should it be highlighted that Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg founded the ECSC (not the EU, which was formed later). To me, it strongly makes it out as if they had a very special part to play in creating it. Why can't it just be one (alphabetised) list like before, instead of this split into two lists (whach are going in a seemingly random order)? - RHeodt 12:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    Never mind, it's gone! - RHeodt 11:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] "Cent" universal?

    The article states that the word "cent" is official in all EU languages, though French and English informally maintain the plural cents. However, I don't believe this is true for Greek, where something like λεπτον is used instead. (Greek Wikipedia doesn't appear to mention this, though.) kwami 10:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, λεπτό singular, λεπτά plural. kwami
    Yes you're right. It doesn't show it on the coins however, except on the Greek ones. I presume its due to lack of space. With coins, they can't be as detailed as notes, so things have to be a bit bigger and more allowing, and a whole extra word, that's even longer than cent, just for a state that's one in twelve I think it's just accepted that it's not feasable. - RHeodt 11:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'll correct that, then.
    Hi, some time in January I added a paragraph about the Italian usage, which should be now in Linguistic issues concerning the euro. IIRC, I also added a comment in the Euro article source suggesting that linguistic issues be treated in Linguistic issues concerning the euro rather than in the Euro article itself, but I don't know if it's still there (and honestly I'm not sure if I wrote the suggestion in a comment or in an edit summary). Anyhow, as a native speaker, I can assure you that "cent" is almost never used in Italian, and absolutely never in spoken language. Even in writing, it appears almost exclusively in gas, electricity, telephone bills et similia, and is rather perceived as an abbreviation of "centesimo"/"centesimi" (being in fact usually followed by a period: "cent.") rather than as an autonomous word. I guess most of us associate "cent" with the American cent, meant as 1/100 of a dollar (I forgot to say... the Italian word "centesimo" just means "hundredth"). --Gennaro Prota 12:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    To be fair, the article only said the word cent was official, not that anyone ever used it. However, I think your point should be mentioned. kwami 17:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    It was, one day :) See "Revision as of 00:11, 19 January 2006" which is mine (though, due to timeout, only my IP address appears). Immediately after I added a comment saying to move everything to the Linguistic issues article and someone else did the actual move. I guess the person doing the move lost the cent/centesimi part along the way. That's roughly the point until which I have been following the article; after that modifications became too frequent for me to keep up, though I have never removed it from my watch list. If you want I can add the Italian info again. Cheers. --Gennaro Prota 18:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    Readded now. See Linguistic issues concerning the euro. --Gennaro Prota 18:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe it's just me being slow, but I don't think you mentioned what is said in Italian. What do you say? - RHeodt 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Well, taken from the article:
    1. In Italian the word euro is used, as both singular and plural. No slang replacement exists.
    2. The word cent is in practical use always replaced by the word centesimo, which simply means "hundredth"; its plural form is centesimi.
    Maybe I have misunderstood your question? --Gennaro Prota 15:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    No. That's exactly what I meant. (And sorry for the late reply; I was in France since I wrote that question and I was just being slow!) - RedHot 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] NPOV

    This article seems to have a strong pro-Euro anti-US stance in that it doesn't include several criticisms about the Euro as well as potential problems with the Euro becoming the new reserve currency. For example, countries not being able to set their own interest rates/fiscal policy has made some manufacturers very uneasy. Also, in regards to the Euro there are some very significant downsides to becoming the new reserve currency that the article doesn't discuss. In fact, the European Central Bank has made no indications that they would like the Euro to become the new world reserve currency. There are significant economic implications to running currency deficits, and the somewhat manufacturing-heavy European economy which this article does not even discuss.

    Despite it being nominated as a "well written article" this article is severely lacking in criticisms of the Euro as well as not discussing any sort of downsides to some of the possibilities discussed.

    Rewrite.

    I don't quite see how failing to mention problems that the euro economies would incur if the euro were to become the major reserve currency is an anti-US stance?
    I agree that the article needs to be reviewed for NPOV violations (and general accuracy), but it's hardly bad enough for a rewrite; it might be a good idea to be careful and provide references before accusing anyone of anti-Americanism.
    RandomP 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    I would be happy if the anonymous poster would learn that euro is not a proper noun and is not supposed to be capitalized any more than dollar is. But that's me. Evertype 19:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Other objections in the non-participating states

    I think that a few other things out to be mentioned regarding Sweden, the UK and Denmark. I can't speak for the other countries of course, but in the UK there are fears that switching over to the Euro will negitivly impact the nation's soverignty, and bring Britain one step closer to ceasing to exist as a political entity.

    Additionally, there was the incident where the UK was forced out of the first ERM, the damage this incident did to British interests still leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many British business leaders.

    [edit] When did it become a currency?

    The second paragraph of the article says:

    The euro was introduced to world financial markets in 1999 and launched as a currency in 2002.

    At the same time, the section headed "2.1 History (1990-2002)" says:

    The currency was introduced in non-physical form (travellers' cheques, electronic transfers, banking, etc.) at midnight on 1 January 1999, when the national currencies of participating countries (the eurozone) ceased to exist independently in that their exchange rates were locked at fixed rates against each other, effectively making them mere non-decimal subdivisions of the euro.

    This inconsistency ought to be removed. I'd suggest that the second quoted paragraph - that the currency was introduced in 1999 - is more accurate. At that time, the legal status of the existing coins and notes were, I believe, changed so that they became representations of a fixed value of the euro. In practical terms, it was in 1999 that the usefulness of the euro to businesses came into being. For example, if a French company signed a contract with a German company, which was for a fixed number of deutschmarks and delivery two years later, the exchange rate risk (namely that the number of francs this would produce for the French company might change in the coming years) was eliminated from the start of 1999 rather than in 2002. Adrian Robson 12:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

    I agree, and have edited the introduction paragraph appropriately. Revert me if I'm wrong. Henning Makholm 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] My changes

    This was unwieldy to type in the edit comment, so I'm putting it here.

    • The date for the opening of the oil exchange is unknown. The previous date listed is anachronistic.
    • The reason for Irans delays of the opening of the oil exchange are unknown. The claims listed in the previous version were speculations. Joffeloff 21:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] CFP Franc

    There are some hints that the Euro is to be introduced in French pacific territories in 2007... shouldn't this be mentioned on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.36.8.100 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-28 13:45:25 (UTC)

    Perhaps. If you can find verifiable, reliable sources for those "hints", then go ahead and add a description of them to the article. Henning Makholm 14:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    I've also read of this, but I haven't been able to find anything giving a date for that to happen... —Nightstallion (?) 16:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    The best source currently only I could find is [1]. I did have something stating that Flag of French Polynesia French Polynesia's parliament approved such a change, but the site at [2] is no longer available, not even with the Wayback Machine. —Nightstallion (?) 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    another source says chances of an early introduction of the euro in New Caledonia in the nearly future are slim...Thewikipedian 11:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    Wouldn't the Pacific franc have to be part of ERM II for two years prior to being replaced by euros? Cf. the Estonian crown which also has been pegged to the euro since the beginning. This would rule out replacement by euros in 2007. (218.228.195.44 04:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC))
    Nope. There is a difference between EU (candidate) countries adopting the Euro and third states doing so. Any country theoretically could simply declare its national currency to be the Euro, the US Dollar, or sheep, for that matter, without the support of the ECB, US Fed, or local barnyard. Montenegro unilaterally adopted the Euro quite some time ago. The DOMTOM have the added benefit that they are, in many senses, administratively part of France.samwaltz 06:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Version 0.5 Nomination

    This article has been approved for inclusion into Version 0.5. However, is it possible to add a very brief summary of information about future entrants to the Eurozone? Currently, this article's section points to that article, but it should have at least a short list of the countries scheduled to enter. A few more references could help too. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] GBP query

    Why is GBP out of format on the currency exchange rates??

    i.e. 1 GBP = € 1.45800 rather than € 1 = 0.686705 GBP

    Please feedback DannyM 07:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

    I think I added the currency exchange rate section there. I do not know the usual "format" of displaying exchange rate in the Eurozone, so I just put whatever I think that makes sense to me. Of course, I don't get the format right all the time. However, the information itself is not wrong. --Chochopk 06:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the message, sorry to appear critical :(. The values are correct (well as of yesterday morning @0705 UTC (0805 BST)). DannyM 08:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    For your example above, € 1 = 0.686705 GBP is used here in Ireland.
    When I watch British channels it is used the other way around as it is
    outside the Eurozone and thus intends to buy the euro currency.

    Market convention is EUR/GBP, e.g. 0.6845, not GBP/EUR, e.g. 1.4609. It has been this way since the euro was introduced on 01/01/1999. The British media frequently get this wrong, quoting wholesale rates as GBP/EUR, which is pointless, as that's not how it's traded. Retail rates are another story, but in most countries, they too are quoted EUR/GBP, not GBP/EUR. NFH 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Price parity - what?

    The article says

    "Similarly, price transparency across borders is said to benefit consumers find lower cost goods or services. There is no universally accepted scientific theory based on firm evidence that this is an inevitable consequence, but rather is more likely to come about, if and when it does, due to popular belief in this system."

    I can't, off the top of my head, think of an economic theory that would come close to meeting the standards that a scientific theory has to meet. And I certainly don't think that any of them could be described as an "accepted scientific theory based on firm evidence that this is an inevitable consequence". (The laws of motion or gravity would presumably fall into that camp.) Economics is too heavily influenced by human behaviour (either at a macro or micro level) to get it right every time. There are just too many variable to model. That's why every financial instrument in the world has some risk attached.

    Obviously, something does need to be said about price parity/transparency. It's a fairly important benefit of cash over the barter system... Maybe the currency page has some info on it. I'll give it some thought and amend this section, unless anyone has a strong argument against my view here. Kayman1uk 08:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

    The quote from the article show extreme naivite about what a scientific theory is, but the follow up is, if anything worse. "universally accepted scientific theory" is an oxymoron. "inevitable consequence" very questionable concept except in very loose conversation. Economics is not a science? Please check out the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. If you're saying that economic and other social sciences are more difficult that physics or chemistry or biology, etc. you are merely stating the obvious. BTW, there were certainly times when chemists used to say that biology was not a real science, forgetting of course that there were times when physicists said that chemistry wasn't a real science.... Smallbones 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

    The comment that euro caused price increases is questionable. Trade unions in Cyprus studied the situation in Europe and found out that there were some price hikes in countries that their currencies were worth only a few eurocents if even that. For example, 1 drachma was worth 0.29 eurocents and Greece has seen increases. Countries with currencies valued close to the euro or even higher saw small price drops. The introduction of the euro also seems to have given the opportunity for price hikes on some items that were due for that for years. For example, in Cyprus many goods became more expensive over the years, while some agricultural products hold their prices steady for more than 10 years now. A rounding up is very possible, but further long term price stability is expected. --Q43 12:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Heads or Tails

    Which side of the Euro coin is heads and which is tails? Most people I know say the sign with the map is heads, and the other side is tails. However, on many countries euros, that side actually has a head on it.--Richy 00:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

    Heads is national side. Tails is the denominational (value) side. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 01:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    Is it? I know that here in Ireland most people would say heads is the common side. Although we usually have Irish euro coins and say "head or harp?" when flipping, as the harp is on the other side... Stifle (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'd agree. I'm in Ireland too, and whenever someone uses heads and tails, heads always refers to common side. But as far as I know, it is officially the other way around. - Рэдхот 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Same bag?

    in the info box: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Kosovo, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, and Vatican City

    • it is nonsence to put all in the same bag, only the twelve countries should be included, the rest should have a different place, but not mixed, the Euro is the merger of 12 currencies (period), and has nothing to do with kosovo, neither with Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City that use the currency due to an agreement. it is like saying the Dollar is the currency of Transilvania, Sealand and the United States of America. --Pedro 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


    [edit] French DOM-TOM

    I just removed the French DOM-TOM from the list of countries using the Euro, because ... they're not countries. They use the Euro because France does. We do not say the United States and the District of Columbia use the U.S. Dollar, even though D.C. is a district, not a state. samwaltz 08:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

    I can see your logic, but I think comparing DOM-TOM is not really analogous to District of Columbia. It would be like the insular areas of the U.S.. List of countries do list Mayotte, Saint Pierre and Miquelon as "dependent territories". It also list Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. The very same article also says "The overseas regions/overseas departments of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion are integral part of France, and therefore not listed." So if that is true, i.e. these 4 places are no different than Île-de-France (are those 4 régions or départements?) then I will say no more.
    But what about (Mayotte) and (Saint Pierre and Miquelon)? --Chochopk 09:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


    [edit] Euro as unofficial currency

    Could we include a section about locations where the Euro has not been recognised by the local governments, but is often used as currency, regardless? I can pay in Euro in large parts of Slovakia (Bratislava, Nitra) and Hungary (Sopron). Additionally, I have been in countries outside the Eurozone where I could take Euro from ATMs/Bankomats. samwaltz 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

    The euro is also in common usage in western Russia and Turkey. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    Can you get euros from just about any cash machine, or only at a few special locations? In Stockholm there is a small amount of cash machines where you can withdraw cash in euros, but most of them seem to be located at airports and similar places. Some even offer pounds sterling, and the main usage for these seems to be withdraw money and then leave the country for somewhere else where EUR or GBP is used as the main currency. Also, in Sweden, the card is still charged in Swedish crowns -- are you charged in Slovak crowns and Hungarian forints or in euros when withdrawing cash from those machines? (218.228.195.44 07:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC))
    I think we definitely could, but you'll need sources. It would be a good contribution to the article, but if it's not recognised at any level, then we'll need a source (even an online shop from the region might suffice) - Рэдхот 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Smallest unit (expertise required)

    It is said that prices in the Netherlands and Finland are round to the nearest 5 cent multiples. My question is, are thing already priced individually to the nearest 5 cent multiples already? What about gasoline? What about the interest you get from your saving account? Do people have the tendencies to go one step further and price things to 10 cent multiples?

    What about other countries?

    Thanks. --Chochopk 10:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

    No, articles are priced exactly, and when paid for by non-cash methods (credit cards, etc.,) are paid to the precise cent. It's when cash is used to pay for the transaction that the total price of all articles bought is added up, and that sum is then rounded to the nearest 5 cents, so the total rounding is never more than 3 cents. If the price of every article on sale was rounded to the nearest 5 cents it would be enormously inflationary. -- Arwel (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    Do shops also have rules on very small purchases to stop people either getting stuff for free or at least a vert significant discount by making tiny transactions? Plugwash 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    They use common sense. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    Keep in mind that 5 cents are the equivalent of nothing. Nothing would ever have prices as low as 5 cents, so I do not think this is an issue. The value of countless such minimal transactions would at any rate be so small that the only people I could think of that would value their time so little to endeavour on a mission to get these discounts would be very small children. Bfg 19:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    Some time around introduction of EU coins there came up the idea how to become a millionaire. It went like that: 0. go to germany, 1. go to your local bank, give it 1 german Pfennig which they have to convert to 0,511 cent which is rounded to 1 cent. 2. get the cent, have them convert it to Pfennig: 1 cent = 1,96 Pfennig so you get 2 Pfennig. 4 Take them and convert them *individually* to cent again. This idea would have worked, unfortunately the time needed for getting a million this way was way too long: 10^8 transactions needed :) 194.97.235.6 10:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Bfg is, of course, speaking from the point of view of some very rich countries, with very high incomes. Their statement that 3c is a ridiculously small amount which won't concern anyone apart from children will surely apply to wealthy countries, but is unacceptable in the poorer EU countries, where even the small approximations which were brought about by the initial conversions to euros had reprecussions on the average family's buying power. 83.132.98.149 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    Just thought I'd point out that expertise is not required for this. All is needed is someone who either lives in, or has been to the Netherlands or Finland (since the euro came in in cash). - Рэдхот 10:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Plural

    As the only English-speaking country that uses the euro is Ireland, it seems to follow that official and common usage in Ireland would dictate the plural. The usage is split with a slight favouring of "euro" over "euros". Even if it was the other way around, this is hardly conclusive; the official plural "euro" is certainly a better choice for the Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    Incidentally, I've listed the edit war on WP:LAME, as it admittedly is. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    Bully for you. The English-language Wikipedia isn't "for" Ireland, and the usage of the s-less plural is a mistake only perpetrated upon the Irish people because Charlie McCreevy didn't get it right and didn't fix his error when it was pointed out to him. Spain and France and Portugal quite sensibly use the natural plural euros in all contexts other than legislation. The consensus has been to use the natural plural euros on the Wikipedia because it reflects the actual usage of most English-speaking people in the world and that includes people in Ireland whether you consider them to be in the majority or in the minority. You may think this disaster of language-planning is "lame". But it's not. Language matters, and Irish people who travel and say "fifty cent" just sound like rubes—and while you may not have been paying attention, I was. The s-less plural, when first "introduced" by RTÉ, weirded out everybody in Ireland, until (some of) them heard it so often they started to use it, "because they were supposed to". Well, they weren't supposed to. Evertype 14:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think that the discussion is not a lame one, but Evertype - you are taking this discussion way to personal. I'm a member of the "Norwegian conservative language" group (the best translation I could think of), so I share your need to get agitated over linguistic issues. But still we should try to keep the discussion civil. Statements like "Bully for you" are not promoting such an environment. Bfg 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    I take your point, but "bully for you" seemed to be an appropriate counterpoint to "as it admittedly is". I guess I might have added a smiley. It's just that this is extraordinarily tiresome. The decision to prefer the plural "euros" on the English-language Wikipedia dates back to 2002! (And I was not involved with this page then, either.) Evertype 07:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

    The only "official" aspect is that the bank notes say 5/10/20/50/etc with an invariant plural. Why? We have a whole article about Linguistic issues concerning the euro that explains that there are a wide variety of national conventions to express the plural. It would be intolerable for the ECB to select the appended-S convention used in the states along the western sea-board for preferential treatment. Yes, it is a lame discussion, and even lamer to escalate it. What next, plural of pound to be "pound" because some people in Ireland (and parts of England) say "twenty five pound". And just for reference, fr:Euro uses "euros" without any debate - there is even a heading Les pièces et les billets en euros (lit:The coins and notes in euros). --Red King 20:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    • In Portuguese Euros is the only plural that is used and was never an issue. The use of Dois euro (English: "two Euro") is unthinkable and never occurs both in the speach and in written forms (including checks, etc.). While the pronunciation of Euro is a reallistic issue, and some pronunce euro/euros (the "official" pronunciation) while others euru/eurus (Portuguese natural pronunciation). We don't need to tag the article because of that. --Pedro 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Development warning

    I placed a warning on the top of the page that this page is currently under development. This is to prevent people from changing the euro/euros status without reading the talk page. Personally I find the issue a little bit annoying, if you cannot resolve this within the next three weeks, I will put this article in front of the arbitration comittee, to reach a final conclusion. Bfg 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    What is annoying is that there was discussion about this matter, and the consensus was that the plural euros should be used on the English-language Wikipedia. I prefer to keep to that consensus, which is why I revert. This isn't a new issue; it isn't a sudden revert war. The people who keep coming in and changing to the s-less plural have not read [[3]] or [[4]]. That is what is annoying. I don't think this "development warning" prevents people from changing the plural, and I don't think arbitration will prevent new people from changing it in future. So what I have been doing is reverting to euros and pointing to previous consensus. Evertype 07:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with Evertype. There is no real dispute. The large majority are satisfied with the natural plural: any new editor can be referred to previous discussion. This time is merely unusual because one editor refuses to accept the consensus view. Development warning is overkill. --Red King 20:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Historical table

    I disgree with this change [5] , in fact, this table should only include the founding currencies of the euro, as it was unveileid when the Euro was to be launched. it is an historical table, so Slovenia should not be included, there's the Greek issue, but the best is also to exclude Greece.--Pedro 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

    Yes and no. I would support adding a division line into the table, for the purpose of clarifying which were the "original" currencies, and which had subsequently been absorbed/renounced/etc. samwaltz 21:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with Samwaltz. --Chochopk 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    I would say that it is useful to have all currencies in the same list. If you are uncertain in which order, and when, certain currencies were replaced, you might have to look at a lot of different places. (218.228.195.44 01:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC))
    samwaltz's idea is the best. --Pedro 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    I have modified the table, added an extra column with de exact day the rate was announced. A black line divides the 10(BEF=LUF) original currencies of the eurozone with other currencies that joined later. Thewikipedian 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Google friendly?

    I'm going to put the infobox back in the upperright corner. I don't know what google friendly means but I don't think we're editing articlas so googlers can find them in 5 seconds, I though ti was to make the artical look good? — HurricaneDevon @ 00:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

    Google friendly means that google can display the opening para, not some illegible gobbledygook. We should encourage people searching for info about the euro to come here. --Red King 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Inclusion of EU as a user of euro?

    I added the EU as a user of euro a while back, but Red King removed it. But shouldn't it be included, as, as noted on the EU's own article, in many areas the EU resembles a federation AND the EU - when carrying out matters of its own - uses only euro. So shouldn't it be there? - Рэдхот 15:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    There are two problems with including it.
    1. The EU may "resemble" a federation in some respects (but does not in many others). What is important is the legal status and legally the EU is not a federation.
    2. More importantly, a significant number of members of the Union do not use the euro, so it would be misleading to include the EU for as long as that remains the case.
    --Red King 23:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Not to be rude, but you keep ignoring the fact that I stated, the EU itself. The EU doesn't dissappear when you subtract the states. Its not an abstract association, it does have physical things. Yes I agree including EU is misleading but a note of somesort should suffice. Shouldn't it? Or instead to eliminate the misleading aspect, you could just name the institutions which use it. But that's ridiculously long. - Рэдхот 10:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    But "the EU itself" only exists as a free association of member states and has no absolute existence (but I agree, it's not an abstract association either, and does have certain characteristics in common with a federation like Canada or Australia). But I really can't see how you can say "the EU uses the euro" when not all of it does so. (Conversely, when all of it does do so, you would be absolutely correct to list it). As a parallel, would you say that NAFTA uses the US Dollar? I suspect that there are many Canadians and Mexicans who might object!
    Though now that I think of it, it does use the euro to determine CAP payments - there is no such thing as the green pound any more. So I do see whay you are driving at. I just think that there are major problems with putting it in the summary. If an American arrived in London or Stockholm with a fistful of euros exepcting to use them in the EU, they'd be directed to the nearest bank to change them. But if a European went to the US with a fistful of US dollars, they could use them in any state of the Union--Red King 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    Still, the EU as an organisation does use the euro, and I'd be strongly in favour of listing it in the template. —Nightstallion (?) 12:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    My approach to this issue is this: As of yet, the EU doesn't have legal personality. However, the two remaining European Communities do have legal personality, and the Union makes use of those legal personalities. Now, what are these Communities? As a matter of international law, they are not states, they are international organizations. Of course, they are quite unlike (much more state-like) than any other international organization ever, but they are still nonetheless international organizations. And, as far as international organizations go, they are not alone in using a currency -- almost every international organization has used one or more currencies in its operation, the most important of which is its unit of account. The most common unit of account for an international organization would probably be the US Dollar, but other national currencies are/have been used, as have non-currency units of account, such as SDRs. Indeed, before the introduction of the Euro, the Communities used the ECU as its unit of account. Anyway, the question is this -- on the page of a currency, do we mention which international organizations use it as its unit of account, or otherwise use it? Generally no; although in this particular case a mention would probably be in order. Second question: on the page of a currency, do we list the international organizations which use in the same list as the states which use it? No. Therefore, what should we do? We should mention in this article in the verbiage that the EU uses the Euro as its main working currency and unit of account; but we should not list the EU in the list of countries which use it. If it is to be listed at all, it should be listed with some clear separation, so its clear its not part of the list of countries which use it, but a separate thing... --SJK 13:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    I don't see any problem with some indication of the situation, if it was to be included in the list. One of the main reasons I want the EU on the list is because none of the eurozone states control or own the euro, put simply: you couldn't call it France's (or any other) own currency. But you could call it the EU's currency. It was created by the EU. It's controlled by the EU. It is used by the EU. For any state in the eurozone, you can only really say the first and last, and even to say the first would be a bit misleading. - Рэдхот 19:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Slovenian tolar not fixed?

    Why does the article say the Slovenian tolar is fixed when the European Central Bank's exchange rates against it are still listed and still varying from day to day. Yes, only marginally but varying nonetheless[6]. - Рэдхот 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    In that case, it is factually incorrect and you should delete it. --Red King 23:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Ok. I just wasn't sure if the ECB was going crazy! But seriously, I was hoping putting it here first would encourage someone to show the source that they used, to see exactly what it said. - Рэдхот 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I believe the fixed exchange rate agreed upon at the meeting will come in force January 1, 2007, and until then the Slovenian tolar floats freely. After checking the Bank of Slovenia's website, it seems that is indeed the case (http://www.bsi.si/en/). edolen1 12:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Not that I disagree, since that's what I seem to get from their site too, but that seems very unlikely. That mean's that although they have a rate agreed, people could very easily play the fact that it's rate from 1 Jan '07 is fixed. I can't think of exactly how that can be exploited, but I'm sure there's some way to exploit it. - Рэдхот 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    And that playing would explain why any changes in value would be only marginal at this point, if you know a currency is going to be worth a certain ammount at a certain time in the future and its cheaper than that now you are going to buy. Likewise if its more expensive now than it will be when its fixed people will sell. Plugwash 11:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, but that marginal bit could be quite a lot if you're dealing with a lot of money. Should the rate from 2007 be readded since its been clarified now. Like saying that it will be fixed from 2007. - Рэдхот 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Frequently And Infrequently Used

    This needs to be rewritten. In my recent trip to Greece, the €100 bill was not all that uncommon. The situation with coins is more tricky. In 2003 in the Netherlands, only a store called C&A priced in a way that 1c and 2c coins were needed. So they were rare even back then. As for Greece, I have just returned from a trip there and I have seen a reversal. Back in Spring 2002 and in Spring 2003, almost everywhere, 1c and 2c coins and often even 5c coins were omitted from change. I remember characteristically an item costing €1.17, rang up for €1.17, and then the cashier demanded €1.20. Now, however, almost always you get correct change to the last cent. --Q43 16:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Ceuta & Melilla

    Do the Spanish exclaves of Ceuta & Melilla have the Euro? Should this be mentioned? (JROBBO 04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

    Ceuta and Melilla are legally part of Spain. --Red King 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Macroeconomic Stability

    Heh, I'm finally learning how to use the editing tools at Wikipedia. I didn't realize there were whole discussions on articles hiding behind the articles themselves. Anyway, since my edits were quite substantial in some sections, I thought some folks might like a little more justification. I rewrote much of the section called "Macroeconomic Stability" with the following goals in mind:

    - Shortening it (previous editors note that the article is too long) - Removing topics addressed in other parts of the article - Couching the discussion in the language of modern economics (i.e. using terms such as Seignorage, which can succinctly describe a policy that previous authors have used much more lengthy terms to describe) - Removing irrelevent topics (there are all sorts of weird references to this social market economy, the point of their inclusion is clearly lost on me) - Focusing the section on the purported macreconomic benefits of reduced inflation and reduced expected inflation

    While I think most of the article is reasonably accurate and well-written (if plagued by the occaisional loopy economic argument), this particular section was disasterously confusing and clearly written separately from most of the rest of the article. Anyway, I'd be much obliged for more fixes as well as further discussion. Cheers.

    [edit] More edits

    I'm trying to prune out some of the weirder economic assertions out of here while preserving all of the established facts and some of the well-regarded theories (i.e. those that can be traced to a reputable textbook of some form).

    I've created a couple of goofs I'll fix later when I have a moment... for example, there's a reference to "subsidization" in the oil section which is perfectly accurate, but makes no sense in the context of the article anymore. I was a little heavy handed in my previous edit. I'll fix it shortly. Jelklan 17:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


    Update:

    Integrated information about "fiscal federalism", which applies to the U.S. but not the EU—at least not to the same degree.

    Seignorage revenue is rather substantial for Europe if the euro is adopted as a new international reserve currency. Appended a small paragraph in "A new reserve currency."

    In the ===Euro and petroleum=== section, I consolidated a couple of short paragraphs into one larger, more readable one (hopefully), deleting a few facts that seemed better suited to the articles on oil, petroeuros or whatever.

    Jelklan 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] 1 and 2 cents in Ireland

    Someone put "1 and 2 cent coins are rarely used in Ireland" in the infobox. Is it true? What I heard is the contrary, that they use the lower value coins more than other eurozone members. But I have no source. Neither "Euro coins" or "Irish euro coins" mentions anything about it. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Nope, it's nonsense. We use 1¢ and 2¢ coins all the time in Ireland. Evertype 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    I agree. I'm removing it now (was it already removed? If it was, it has been re-added, so I'm removing it again). - Рэдхот 14:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    We are also using the €0.01 and €0.02 coins here in Belgium... I wonder why it's out of use in the EU. Thunderhawk89 12:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    Recently I was in both the Netherlands and Belgium. In the Netherlands all shops rounded the total to a multiple of EUR 0,10 or EUR 0,05, so my EUR 0,01 and 0,02 coins were useless. However, in Belgium I was given a EUR 0,01 coin as change. So the article seems to be wrong when it claims "1 and 2 cents (only in Finland and the Netherlands)". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.131.176.54 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    No, the article is not wrong. It says 1 and 2 cent coins are rarely used only in Finland and the Netherlands, which means 1 and 2 cent coins are commonly used everywhere else. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    I modified the phrasing. The 1 and 2 cents were never used in Finland--the Finns didn't even want to coin them, but were told they had to strike a nominal amount, which were sold to collectors (they are not rarities but command a premium). The 1 and 2 cents were effectively withdrawn in the Netherlands around 2005. They remain a legal tender, but by law, prices that you pay are rounded. You can pay using them, but the price will still be rounded. So if you buy two items at the supermarket, each costing 42c, you will pay 85c no matter how you pay. And when I exchanged guilders for euros at a branch of the central bank, they gave me the exchange to the last cent. As a practical matter, I should add, it is my experience (I'm just saying this, I'm not adding it), that the only place that prices are other than in multiples of 5c is the supermarket, and I've travelled in nine of the twelve since the introduction of the Euro.--Wehwalt 14:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

    What about gasoline and interest generated from saving account? And by 9 of 12, u mean the 12 provinces of the Netherlands? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Placement of the currency sign

    Placement of the currency sign varies from nation to nation. While the official recommendation is to place it before the number (contravening the general ISO recommendation to place unit symbol after the number[citation needed] ), people in many countries have kept the placement of their former currencies.[citation needed]

    • I say: placement varies with mood. I usually put it before the number and many companies also does that, but most people put it after the number (the former currency style). So I don't think that statement is correct. -Pedro 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Bigfoto link

    I reinstated the bigfoto link to comply with the copyright on the picture entitled Euromoney.jpg. I felt it was worth using this picture as the previous picture had been used twice. If the consensus is that this arrangement is not appropriate then both the link and the photo can be removed. Agnellous 08:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    I've raised the question in Commons of whether a license with these terms is compatible with Wikipedia at all. Notinasnaid 09:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    The source is already mentioned on the image page. I was wondering if citing it again on the article would be necessary. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    I took a creative approach to this problem and replaced the picture with a picture I took myself. Hope that's alright.. Avij 09:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    I assume that's Image:Euro banknotes and coins.jpg. If so, well done on the thorny legal question of whether we can show banknotes on screen. Though I wonder if there is a pending issue of claiming public domain on a photo exclusively comprising copyright works? (Something for someone who understands US copyright law a lot better than me...) Notinasnaid 09:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    {{Money-EU}} gives

    Copyright European Central Bank The image above depicts a unit of currency issued by the European Central Bank (ECB). This design is copyrighted by the ECB, and its use is permitted by ECB, "as long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes". [7]

    --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    You're obviously right. I'm merely stating that I have abandoned all rights to that picture, but other restrictions and copyrights may apply. I guess this sentence from {{PD-self}} applies: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. (emphasis mine). I've now slapped the {{Money-EU}} template to the license section of that pic to (hopefully) clarify the issue. Oh, I had a closer look at the picture and thought that the fiver at the bottom of the page was 'too visible'. I rearranged the setting a little and took a new photo, which also appears to be a little bit sharper than the previous photo. As my account is too new in commons, I had to upload it with a new filename, thus Image:Euro coins and banknotes.jpg. I'll try to get rid of the old picture.. Avij 12:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Too long?

    Does anyone else think this article needs some liposuction? It's gotten very bulky, but I always get the impression that it could say what it says in an article about half the size (a lot of redundant sentences, or ones that belong elsewhere). Anyone else agree? Personally I like the Dutch article. Its not too small, and not too large (our problem) and just looks nice and neat. - Рэдхот 12:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

    This article will always be long. The problem I see is repetition of data, notably with Eurozone and Currencies related to the euro. These data should be move/merged, or the tables should be templatified. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    I agree. But I think that the problem isn't a straight-cut one. I think a lot of it stems from IPs with no regard for Wikipedia policy (a lot of high-profile articles seem to have the same problem). But I think that we could try and cut it out. But we'd probably have to make a list (and of course see what others think) - Рэдхот 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    As some point, I'd like to consolidate a lot of the economics stuff in here. Maybe I'll try to do that now. Let me know if you see any obvious problems, I'm going to "be bold" as the wiki page suggests and hopefully there will be some good feedback... Jelklan 04:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you, Jelklan. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, round one is done. Any comments, updates, fixes, etc., please post.Jelklan 04:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    Looks good to me. Next I suggest clearing out 90% of the Eurozone section, reducing it to a stub that directs readers (and editors!) to the Eurozone article. After that, the Effects section could become a separate article too. --Red King 16:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Exchange rate

    I will make my case as to why quoting exchange rate is necessary.

    1. The relative value of a currency should be mentioned. There's no question about that
    2. If I don't do it, some IP user will
    3. So instead of one format per currency, I provide a platform that can be applied to all currency pages.
    4. So why quoting the precise value of a particular day?
    • Right now it's 1.25095 USD, and I don't see a reason to round it arbitrarily to 1.25 or 1.3
    • We cannot predict the future, but by providing a latest precise value, the current value would be, on average, the closest figure to the future value, assuming the future value follows a normal distribution where the mean is the current value and the longer it is in the future, the wider the standard deviation is.
    • And by the assumption on the standard deviation, the date also provides some implied information. The older it is, the more "off" the value could be.

    --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

    This all seems to come down to "The relative value of a currency should be mentioned". There is a question, I am raising it. "If I don't do it, some IP user will" is not an argument either way. Of course, if it is actually required, a uniform standard is highly desirable, but that is getting ahead in the debate. So, what is it for? From my perspective, it leaped out of the article as being completely unencyclopedic. The world outside Wikipedia exists, and can provide today's currency values any time. Also as an editor, what am I seeing? An invitation to update the numbers? A frozen snapshot, never to change? Or something that belongs to a particular person to update when they have time? A historical table of values might be useful, though I suspect we should really just cite one rather than reproduce one. I cannot think of any similar precedent (but of course Wikipedia is big and it's easy to miss big things). Thoughts, anyone? Notinasnaid 10:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    So there are several issues I would like to address. "If I don't do it, some IP user will" may not be a very strong argument, so forget about that. IMHO, the value of a currency is not unencyclopedic and falls into the world of Wikipedia. Is it not an important data of a currency? So you might be wondering, it's changing every second (well.. yeah, when the market is open). Population of a country and revenue of a company are also ever changing. But these data are still included on Wikipedia. Something being constantly changing doesn't mean it's it's unencyclopedic. It's just that population and revenue aren't published as often and that makes editor from frequently updating. So "an invitation to update the numbers"? Yes, this is a problem. I originally intended the number to be updated somewhere between monthly or weekly, update whenever there is other updates. But obviously I have no control over people. Currently the best way i can think of is something like having template subpages for each currency and transclude them on the currency pages. This way, it's not so obvious how to edit to a random IP user, and edit history would be separated. But the downside of that is the data may become stale if someone who knows how to edit is not around for a long time. To address that, I'm thinking about making a bot. But I'm still debating (with myself). Please trust me when I say I've put a lot of thought into this exchange rate thing. And I do hope that people reading this join the discussion. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    Strange as it may seem, I don't find anything in the United States Dollar article that gives its exchange rates. Why should this article be any different? --Red King 19:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    Right now it's next to the $2 image. And please use lower case for currency unit in article space, as it is grammatically correct. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    Excuse me, I forgot that the relative position is different based on your display resolution. Anyway, the exchange rate of USD is right above its "See also" section. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, found it after United States dollar#Factors influencing the dollar price. --Red King 16:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Principle of quoting exchange rate on an arbitrary date

    IMO, it is not a good idea in principle to quote exchange rates as at some arbitrary date. It is not sustainable and not encylopedic. An annual average is far more useful.

    • It is not sustainable because it is unrealistic to expect that it will be revised for all currencies every day. Anyone who needs to know the actual daily rate will use a reliable source like XE.COM or OANDA.COM
    • It is not encyclopedic because, by capturing the rate on an arbitrary date, no useful understanding of long term price is conveyed to the reader.

    The historical exchange rates (since 1990) that are given in Exchange rates section of the Economy of the United Kingdom entry. are far more useful. Spikes are smoothed and the reader gets a far better idea of the relative prices and how they move over time. It only needs to be updated once a year and the exact date is not critical.--Red King 16:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    Well said. I would like to hear more opinions from others. Please discuss at Template talk:Exchange Rate. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] First use trivia

    Says now on the article: "On 1 January 2002, the first purchase involving euros occurred on Réunion island when officials bought a bag of lychees at a market."

    This is pretty much factual; I wrote a node about this in Everything2, however, with a bit of research; However, I didn't really mark my sources better than "Yahoo! News", so I believe I read a Reuters article about this or something. Someone could dig that out.

    Also, there was Euronews coverage about the first use of euros in continental europe: Costas Simitis withdrew money from ATM in Greece, and Sauli Niinistö bought a cup of coffee for 1€ in Finland. In the live broadcast by Yleisradio at the time, they also interviewed him, and he decided to call Simitis at the same time to wish happy new year and joked about how they were now highly qualified to talk about use of euro currency.

    Wonder if we can find exact sources for these? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Recent addition to the Criticism section

    I'm talking about [8]. I feel that the wording can be misleading. Assuming the national central banks were truly independent before euro, then it is the central banks, not countries that "surrendered" the ability of making policies. And they didn't "surrender" that completely. If I'm not mistaken, ECB policies are still made by representatives of all members.

    Sovereign governments have entrusted the economic health of their countries to a largely independent entity which may not have the best interests of those countries in mind.

    It sounds like ECB might sacrifice the interest of someone for the "greater good" (and by sacrifice, I mean to hurt). IMHO, this is hardly going to happen. And the implication of that is like "for Germany to win, Slovenia has to lose". What about "the policies may not be ideal..."

    --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Different economies in Europe have different needs, maybe one is over-heating and another is struggling. The policies adopted by the ECB will have to compromise one or both of their needs to some extent. This won't always be the case, but it can, and arguably has happened. Peregrine981 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    I think what I meant to convey is that they are surrendering their sovereignty to an organization that may, at times, have competing interests. For example, perhaps there were large riots in France that deterred investment, then France might be best served by lower interest rate, a policy that might not be compatible with (a) the ECB's mandate to keep inflation low or (b) some other country in which there is a very high level of investment. Did that come through in the way I wrote it? No, I think you're right about that and it does need a bit of a rewrite. Are there competing interests? Absolutely. Germany is in the curious position right now of wanting looser monetary policy to try to jumpstart a rather sluggish economy, which is at odds with a large number of other's members desires. This is kind of ironic largely because Germany for so long pursued a very tight monetary policy. 68.77.21.117 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Azores, Madeira, and Canary Islands

    Should these places be mentioned as users of the euro? They do use it according to their articles. Also according to the same articles they are all autonomous regions of Spain.AussieDingo1983 12:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Say what?! So much ignorance in a single sentence. -Pedro 15:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    Please be civil, Pedro. To answer AussieDingo1983's question,
    Place Status Sovereignty Closest continent mentioned in euro
    Azores Autonomous region Portugal Europe No
    Madeira Autonomous region Portugal Africa yes, as part of currencies of Africa nav box
    Canary Islands Autonomous community Spain Africa yes, as part of currencies of Africa nav box
    --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] printer

    After making use of the new infobox parameter to enable multiple listing of printer website, I realized it is a little cluttered. I am leaning toward merging it with euro banknotes, and have the infobox of euro referring to it. However, the merging must be done with the upmost care. There is a small contradiction. Euro says "Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato" (Zecca) for the Italian printer, while euro banknotes says "Banca d'Italia". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Combining sections

    I don't really see why sections 3 and 4 are separate... they're all about the economics of adopting a single currency. I'll happily volunteer to merge the two sections, assuming people aren't too concerned about that. Also, there's that little section 6, which hardly seems to justify its own space. Since the first section talks about the design and selection of the names and symbols and everything, perhaps it would be best if it were moved in there? I guess what I was kind of envisioning here is a more spartan organization of this article: (1) Talk about the characteristics of the euro, naming conventions, etc. (2) The history of the union (3) The economics of it all (4) Statistics / figures (5) Trivia followed by notes and whatnot I mean this more as a proposal to get the ball rolling... I'm constantly jarred by the length of the contents up top and the number of little sections and subsections. Anyway, let me know what you think. Jelklan 07:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah that sounds fine to me. I'd say do it - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 13:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you to whoever removed the spot rate quotes, given that they are more timely and accurately found in the link in that section. Jelklan 06:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Exchange rates formatting

    Why has the exchange rates' format suddenly changed in the Against other major currencies section? I thought the standard way was to show it as "main currency in question"/other currency, but now lots of reversals have been added in brackets, and in some cases they are the only ones. i.e. There are lots of rates as $/€. I thought its meant to be the other way around since that's how banks do it (local/foreign) - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 15:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Changeover to the Euro

    Seems to me we need a section, or perhaps an article, detailing the changeover from the legacy currencies to the Euro, the problems that were supposed to erupt on 1 January 2002 and mostly didn't, and detailing the policies on exchange of legacy currency. It should probably be a separate article.--Wehwalt 14:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

    I would love to see that article. It would be nice to reorganize all these euro related article such as Eurozone, Linguistic issues concerning the euro, Currencies related to the euro, etc. If I have time, I will make a nav box. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    I will work on it. "Introduction of the Euro" seems to be the best title. Start with the fixing of the exchange rates, through to the withdrawal and demonitization of the legacy currencies. --Wehwalt 08:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    lower case "euro" please. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/u/r/Talk%7EEuro_f1a1.html"