Talk:Euro/Archive03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

DO NOT EDIT / POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.

See also Euro talk Archive 1, Euro talk Archive 2..

Contents

Euro/Euros - Non good faith editing

I reverted the edits done by 84.136.136.17. The edit changed all references about euros into euro. I'm not going to take a position in that debate, and I would not have done the reversion, had it not been for the fact that it also deleted the reference to the style guide. That made the edit look PPOV to me. Bfg 11:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting. It was certainly a non-good-faith edit (including deletion of the reference to my own website as well as to the Eu English style guide), and from a user with no other edits too. Just goes to show what a mess the lack of coordinated language planning and the ridiculous broadcasting of the bogus plurals by RTÉ continues to be. Evertype 12:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to clarify that the deletion of the reference to your website had no influence on my decission to revert the article. The sole influence was the deletion of the reference to the style guide, alongside with changing all the occurences of euros into euro. As you are a participant in an ongoing discussion concerning the correct spelling of the currency denominator in English, it could be raised questions as to wether it is apropriate to link to your website on that issue. While the discussion is interesting, I deliberately choose to have no opinion, especially since English is not my native tongue. Bfg 18:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I should like to point out two things. First, it was not I who put the link to my own website on this article. Someone else did that, as far as I can tell even a good while before I became active on the Wikipedia. Second, I do consider the deletion of the Style Guide link worse than the link to my own pages. ;-) In any case, my passionate fervour for the True Plural of Euro (that is, the natural English plural used by all speakers of English except for those led astray by RTÉ (and hence by the Fianna Fáil Finance Minister of the day) will doubtless continue unabated. Evertype 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The history proves it by the way. The link to my webpage on the Euro and standardization was [2003-08-01] and my first edit to this page was [2004-04-11]. Evertype 20:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The plural of euro is... still euros! (except in EU legal texts)

Note to Evertype - personal opinion can not dictate in an article of fact which this is. The European Commission who was and is responsible for the introduction of the Euro - have stated on legal terms that the plural of euro in the English language is euro - this is a FACT. What you are doing when changing this article is doing so on your own beliefs which is wrong. People who use this encyclopaedia require real information and not personal views and how you feel things should be put. As I have provided evidence to prove why I made the changes - I believe it only right that you respect the FACTS and stop changing this article because you do not agree with it.

The European Commission is NOT responsible for the grammar of the English language, and YOU have not read the discussions in the archives for this article. The s-less plural was a mistake, and is preserved (and required) in legislation for consistency in legislation, but the Translation Section of the European Commission rues the use of the s-less plural deeply, as do I, and the RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION is to use the natural plurals "euros" and "cents" in every context BUT legislation. Previous decisions are that "euros" and "cents" are to be used in the Wikipedia. I have personally been involved in these matters since 1996. I am one of the people you can thank for being able to use the EURO SIGN in fonts and keyboards, in fact. See http://www.evertype.com/standards/euro/ if you wish to learn more. I am reverting your edits. Thank you for your attention. Evertype 22:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This seems like an interesting debate - the original person who posted the corrections provided evidence that the plural of euro is actually euro - Evertype have you got any documentation to prove ""RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION is to use the natural plurals "euros" and "cents" in every context"" - if not, i would be with the original poster and use the correct way as specified by the Commission. I am therefore going to put a piece in the main article about what legislation states, which is fact and should be recognised – but i will not change the euros back to euro until such time you can furnish some proof to your above comments. I believe this to be a fair compromise.
I'm not willing to accept this "compromise" for a number of reasons. In the first place, the text you wrote is factually incorrect. In the second, the plural is already discussed in the paragraph immediately following, with a link to Linguistic issues concerning the euro. Furthermore, please see these facts about how the s-less plural arose which are on the Talk page of the Linguistic issues article. We've already discussed this many times on the English-language Wikipedia, and the consensus has been to use the natural plurals euros and cents as everyone in the English-speaking world does. The only place where the s-less plurals must be used are in European legislation. The only reason the s-less plurals are used in Ireland is because RTÉ did what they thought McCreevy's Department of Finance wanted them to do, and the Department of Finance had misunderstood the intent of Directive (EC) No. 1103/97 of 1997-06-17 from the European Council, as had people in the Commission itself. Section 20.7 of the Commission's own English Style Guide states quite clearly:
  • The euro. Like ‘pound’, ‘dollar’ or any other currency name in English, the word ‘euro’ is written in lower case with no initial capital. Guidelines on the use of the euro, issued via the Secretariat-General, state that the plurals of both ‘euro’ and ‘cent’ are to be written without ‘s’ in English. Do this when amending or referring to legal texts that themselves observe this rule. However, in all other texts, especially documents intended for the general public, use the natural plurals ‘euros’ and ‘cents’. In documents and tables where monetary amounts figure largely, make maximum use of the € symbol (closed up to the figure) or the abbreviation EUR before the amount.
As the Wikipedia is not a European Commission legal text, and as it is a document intended for the general public, it should use the natural plurals euros and cents despite the errors made by McCreevy's Euro-Changeover Board and the spinelessness of RTÉ (to whom this has been pointed out). And this was a Wikipedia position argued for and decided as far back as September 2002. Evertype 12:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
After reading your past posts on this subject Evertype - i am not going to bother amending the article - because you will just change it again, like the small minded individual that you are. Any official documentation/legislation drawn up by the E.U., E.C., E.C.B.,E.P.,etc on the euro when referring to euro in the plural sense is euro. If you cannot accept a simple fact you are in serious denial. Until such time legislation is amended - the official stance on euro being plural is as i stated – euro
Well, you have not done your homework, which is why you stoop to ad-hominem attack. You cannot understand this topic until you familiarize yourself with the text and intent of Directive (EC) No. 1103/97 of 1997-06-17 from the European Council which was only really about keeping the banknotes tidy of plurals and variant spellings. And then you have to explain why in Spanish, French, Catalan, and Portuguese the plural is euros. The former Irish Minister for Finance is responsible for the fact that RTÉ and the rest use the s-less plurals, because he did not understand that Directive 1103/97 was not supposed to be about ordinary people and grammar. I do not dispute that the s-less plural is used in legislation, and in fact this article says so in the very paragraph following your now-deleted insertion. Please read that paragraph and you can see it for yourself. If you are interested in the argument I gave to the Minister, you can read it here. You might be interested in the favourable response I had from the President of the European Parliament, or the one I had from the Director General for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission. If you are writing an EU or EC law, you should use the s-less plurals. If you are speaking English, or writing articles in the Wikipedia, you should use the natural plurals euros and cents. That's what the EC recommends. They've done a bad job with this instance of language-planning, and it's painful to people like me, who try to respect the English language. Evertype 14:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

At what points did anyone ever say "one quid, two quids"? Last I checked... never. "Euro" follows the same model, and is supported not only by the EU bureaucracy, but by the majority of the Irish, the only English-speaking country that currently uses the Euro. samwaltz 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is outrageous. "Quid" has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and you have clearly not read any of the previous discussion, including the earliest discussion where consensus was achieved that the natural plural of the word (euros) as used in the English-speaking world is the one that should be used on the English-language Wikipedia and particularly on this and related articles. The EU bureaucracy does NOT support the s-less plural as shown in the paragraph just above here; it recommends that euros be used in all contexts except legislation. The only reason that "the majority of Irish" (as you claim) use the s-less plural is because RTÉ got it wrong and has been broadcasting it for years because they were doing what they thought McCreevy told them to do. I will revert this yet again as I have done consistently according to the consensus achieved on this matter. Evertype 15:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Snort. Lovely consensus of one. What would it take for you to grasp that you are not the arbiter of what consitutes a consensus, or, for that matter, that you are the only one who is able to change back the data. samwaltz 16:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Snort away. Read the archives and you will see that Wikipedians have come to this consensus. Maybe you don't mind bad grammar. "Five cent" and "five euro" is bad grammar as far as I am concerned, and as far as the Commission's own English Style Guide says, the natural plurals euros and cents should be used. Evertype 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comma vs dot

quote -- In languages of mainland Europe it is traditional to use a comma (",") as a decimal, as opposed to the "." used for English. Questions are arising what will happen with the comma European countries use as their decimal divider, if the UK decides to join the monetary union. It is often argued that the English way is more logical, as in all Latin script languages, "." signifies the end of a sentence (i.e. the end of one idea, which can be applied to multiples and divisions of one) and a comma is just a break in a sentence (i.e. dividing one overall thing, such as whole numbers). -- unquote

1. this is unrelated to the euro. It has to do with number notations, and causes a lot of havoc in both computers and peoples minds.

The euro will not change that. A harmonization of decimal points might. --BBird 14:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed that text. It was British europhobic nonsense, muddying the waters by completely confusing mathematical notational conventions with single currency. Ireland uses the "decimal point is period, thousands separator is comma" notation, has not changed it, nor has any plans to do so. --Red King 13:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Well done removing that. It was complete drivel. Unfortunately, American Express (UK) issue EUR-denominated statements in English with amounts shown as €1.234,56 instead of €1,234.56. They refuse to accept this is wrong in English and that these point and comma rules are specific to each language, not to each currency. Nfh 20:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that shouldn't be in there. Also, contrary to that statement, it is arguable that the UK sequence is "more logical" (if anybody's interested, I can explain why.)
Moreover, of course you are right that one should follow conventions for writing numbers just as with other parts of orthography of a given language.
However, I guess the Amex guys just read somewhere that in almost all of Europe, they do it like "€1.234,56". I don't think one ought to get mad about that - the UK (and the Republic of Ireland, for obvious historic-linguistic reasons) is the only European nation to do it "the other way around". So if this was not about the UK but e.g. Germany, do you think people in other countries would always bother to do it that way around just because "the people there themselves do it like that"? No offense...
Edwing 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Euro sign position

"Recently people start to write more often 3,75€ in France, Portugal, Spain and sometimes in Belgium. However, the official writing is € 3,25 in the entire E.U."

I think that (for example) Finland should be added to this list, as they have written the euro sign after the numbers ever since the euros were introduced (mainly because the markka "mk" was also written after the number). Are there other countries (that are not mentioned above) that write it like that? [anon]

then please do! --Red King 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that putting the sign AFTER the number conforms to German legislation, and in the majority of cases, people in Germany do it that way around; but sometimes also the other way around.

Oh, and add something that may be interesting to people wondering "which country does which": To my knowledge (please provide counter-evidence) doing it "this way around" happens to be standard in "northern" Europe (roughly, the countries with a germanic language & Finland), while the UK and "romanic" countries traditionally do it the other way around (same for using the right vs. left track of a two track railway and erecting street signs on posts on the corner of streets vs. putting them onto the walls of the next building!).

BTW, did you notice that English-speaking countries (exception RoI for cultural reasons, but including India & other former colonies) put postal codes behind the place name, while everybody else puts them in front?

Edwing 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Another question is - what is the source for the assertion that the official form is "the official writing is € 3,25 in the entire E.U." . Everything that I have read suggests that subsidiarity applies, which means that national traditions apply. Unless someone can cite a source for this, I shall delete it. --Red King 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Yups, before the Euro was launched, a lot of propraganda was made, and yes, you can use both ways. --Pedro 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright? How is copying blocked?

--Greg 20:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Towards the beginning of the article, along with graphic representations of the bills, the article asserted that 'Copy Wright' and 'Copywrite' law made it necessary that all representation of the currency that is not the actual currency bear the word SAMPLE on it. I corrected the misspellings of Copyright, but I do not know if the facts support the base assertion in that section. While it is my understanding that, indeed, there is law that spells out the use of the currency images that way, I have a sneaking suspicion that it is now copyright law, but some more powerful criminal statute repeated in member states laws.

The current rules on the reproduction of euro notes was published here in the Official Journal of the European Union in March 2003. The legal authority for the rules is Article 106(1) of the Treaty Establishing the European Union (the Maastricht Treaty), and Article 16 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, which will have been restated in the national laws of all the member states. -- Arwel (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent addition: "Reality has proven otherwise"...

What does this mean... Britain has not (yet) joined the euro. Pcb21| Pete 12:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reality of the positioning of the euro symbol on UK/IRL keyboards: the UK may not have joined up, but Ireland has. (The original text asserted that the euro sign would replace the pound sign on UK/IRL keyboards (shift 3). This was pure speculation, so I moved it to a footnote, adding the comment that reality (of keyboards) proved otherwise. Subsequently, Evertype removed it completely, which is what I hesitated to do. --Red King 19:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It added nothing and was needlessly contentious. Evertype 23:05, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Moving the euro sign to another article

I am uncomfortable with this change to a featured article having been made without discussion. I suggest it be put back. Evertype 15:37, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

  • there are some people, in wikipedia, that constantly dismantle good articles. This is the major problem in EN wikipedia, it seems a disease of some sort. -Pedro 16:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Information to mention (?)

Should this be mentioned in the article? If so, in what form? Nightstallion 18:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Growth and stability pact?

I may just be stupid but I can't see any mentioning of the growth and stability pact which sets out the rules of the Euro, it's been in the news alot lately so I really think it deserves a mention somewhere (there are a lot of articles on the euro in a number of places) -- Joolz 14:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Stability and Growth Pact sets out the rules of Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union. It's mostly about price stability (inflation) - there is no formal link with the euro (either in the rules or via institutions like the ECB); and given the number of influences on the value of the currency, only a tenuous informal one via the money supply. It's mostly there because in the early 90s the Germans were worried about the Italians spending too much and driving interest rates up and the euro down - but the limits (3% GDP etc) are arbitrary and absolute, rather than related to interest/currency rates. Rd232 14:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is a valid question, so I've added a "See Also" link to Stability and Growth Pact --Red King 21:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I feel rather silly for chcking 'growth and stability' and not 'stability and growth'. Just because there's "no formal" link doesn't mean it isn't important for an article on the Euro. -- Joolz 17:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Common mistake, and doesn't matter (but the design certainly prioritises stability; "growth" was added to the name as a kind of reassuring afterthought). Certainly worth a See Also link from Euro. Rd232 22:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Obverse/Reverse designations

The assertion that the common side is the obverse side and the national side is the reverse has been here for some time. This seemed to me to be perverse, when this would be at odds with at least 2000 years of custom and practice. So I checked the European Central Bank web site (www.ecb.int) and find that the terms "national side" and "common side" are general used - presumably for Plain English reasons of clarity. However, trusty Google comes to my aid and finds a legal document (para 8) that says this prohibition in Article 2(c) of the proposed regulation regarding medals and tokens bearing any design on their surface that is ‘similar to any of the national obverse designs or to the common reverse face of euro coins. So the article has been wrong for a long time. I've corrected it, replacing the numismatic terms with the clear English terms, but maybe a foot-note for numismatists might be helpful? --Red King 11:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First draft of a new article: Keyboarding the euro sign (draft)

This one keeps coming back to clog the main article at frequent intervals, so I offer Keyboarding the euro (draft) as solution. If you agree, please close the gaps! When we have a consensus, we can link from the main article to it. --Red King 12:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Title changed to Keyboarding the euro sign (draft) for accuracy. Evertype 14:23, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Accepted.
Does anyone think that we need delay any longer making it live? Should we remove Solaris since nobody has contributed anything?
It isn't very pretty. And there is no rush. Try to find some Solaris people. Evertype 21:23, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Do you mean put it in a table? Given that its primary purpose is provide an outlet for folk who keep trying to update the article with machanical details, I'm not convinced that it worth the effort. --Red King 13:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

More PICs - the national side

wouldt it be nice if someone use the twelve national sides of the currency (1 euro coins) and merge it into one picture (maybe in a circle), and put in this article? -Pedro 15:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Break in flow

Does anyone else think that the second sentence, while true, important, probably necessary in the first paragraph, and flowing well from the first sentence, has broken up the flow between the first sentence and what is now the third? As of now, the use of the pronoun "it" seems abrupt and not immediately obvious, because the previous sentence refers to euro coins rather than the euro itself. LeoO3 05:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Coin / note picture order reversal

While the €1 coin is arguably the most iconic symbol of the euro next to the euro symbol itself, I disagree with TheManWithoutAPast's recent reversal of the order of the euro coins and notes pictures at the top of the article which placed the coins on top, making them the first picture seen by visitors. Because euro coins come in both euro and euro cent denominations, and because the numbers showing the euro coin value are the same for borh the euro and euro cent coins, it's not immediately clear for someone unfamiliar with the currency that the 10¢, 20¢, and 50¢ gold-colored coins are not €10, €20, and €50 gold coins.

By contrast, the notes have no such denominational ambiguity amongst themselves. Furthermore, when they are placed above and the coins below, it becomes more likely in the mind of a visitor that the coins are less valuable than the notes, making the situation clearer. And having already seen the €10, €20, and €50 notes and (however rapidly) establishing them in his mind as what euro currency in that amount is, he will be more likely to see the euro coins with those numbers as representing euro cents.

Put simply, in my view, the change was unnecessary, and likely to be more confusing, than the previous arrangement. I propose switching the order back. LeoO3 00:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your analysis. --Red King 22:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk page archived

This page was getting too big, so I archived old entries. Thewikipedian 14:00, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC+2)

"The dollar started to recover in 2005"

Does anyone else think that this line is slightly inaccurate. If you look at the first rates since euro started trading of euro/dollar they were around what they are now. And if you go further back (by doing estimates based on the old currencies) it(dollar) seems to become even weaker. Does anyone else think that maybe "the dollar started to strengthen in 2005" or something would be better? -Gerbon689

1252

someone reverted me saying that my statement that windows-1252 was likely to be the least disruptive option to switch to was "advertising microsoft"

lets spell out the options in detail here

  • Unicode (most likely utf-8)
    • This is a possible choice and certainly the best long term but switching to it is disruptive as it has no little resemblence to what was being used before.
  • ISO-8859-15
    • Certainly a possible choice but it throws away a lot of usefull symbols.
  • ISO-8859-16
    • Again possible but it has almost no symbols at all and isn't that close to the latin variants even for characters with diacritics.
  • Windows-1252
    • Provided your application doesn't use the C1 control codes (which afaict apart from dumb terminals few do) this is by far the least disruptive option to switch to. all the exiting printable characters stay in the exact same places and yet the holes in ISO-8859-1 are filled in, its a win-win.
    • It should also be noted that most browsers treat ISO-8859-1 as synonomous with windows-1252. Thats why we could get away with using characters from it directly in the wikitext before the switch to utf-8.
Let's be clear. All the vendors have moved to Unicode in the current versions of their OSs. The above material refers to temporary work-arounds. Microsoft did it one way, Apple did it another, Nokia did it a third. The implementations were not compatible. All were destructive to the previous use of that position, which varied in its disruptiveness. The old 255 "character" code pages (incl ISO-8859) was bursting at the seams and increasingly disruptive in the connected, multi-lingual, world. The euro symbol may be the first instance when many people became forcibly aware of it, but it is not new. If you have a Windows 9X or a MAC-OS earlier than X or an old cell phone, you'll have to live with the intercept assignment until you can upgrade. But this is outside the scope of an article on the euro - it is much wider than that and it applies to range of typographical marks (such as inverted commas) and [diacritics] too. Maybe you can add some comments to Unicode? --Red King 14:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Reactions following the constition vote

An anon editor add this opinion piece to the main article. I have moved it here:

It is easy to blame the euro for some of the economic problems affecting Europe and as a result feel more comfortable if there was a return to the old currencies. But, much has changed in the world since the euro was first introduced, especially in the areas of increased globalization and high oil prices. To some extent, the euro has cushioned the EU economy from the effects of these that the old currencies could never. The slow growth and high unemployment Europe has been experiencing is the direct result of failing to liberalize strict and uncompetitive work rules. Yet, fringe political parties and people with a lack of understanding on how the new global economy works find an easy scapegoat in the euro.

Currencies today are fiat currencies and their value is determined strictly on the faith of investors outside the home market. There is no gold or precious metals backing a currency. A nation may have control of interest rates but not on their own currencies value relative to others. Adjusting interest rates is no longer a reliable means to set the value of ones currency.

A return to the former currencies as some wish for would be a disaster to those that would attempt it. The old currencies would at once decrease in value relative to the euro and other nation's currencies. The huge expense to convert would increase national deficits to levels of bankruptcy and former debt as well as new debt would have to be paid back in euros or other hard currencies. National and personal wealth would be wiped out, and the hoped for return to pre-1999 prices not only won't materialize, but prices will rise significantly as hyperinflation grips the economy.

The experts know this and will do everything in their power to assure the euro stays put.

I just moved it, so don't debate the content with me! --Red King 19:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting and informed. What happened in Italy was a person that was a nationalist and always said that. The problem is that someone had listen to him in a critical period. Obviously, the Euro is here to stay. It is no longer an EU's currency it is a national currency of many countries (the Euro is that really, that's why it is printed and coined in all countries). The Euro was just blamed by the growth of inflation and that was a fact. Though, the inflation is now very steady. It is an interesting point but it should be NPOVed, only mentioning the hypothetical future on a Euro withdraw, at max.-Pedro 09:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd be interested in a section on this subject. Perhaps we should add some "before and after" statistics on growth rates for eurozone countries. Here in the UK we are constantly being told by the media that the Euro is a 'failure' without any explaination of what a 'failure' is or what is meant by it. Just today, Kenneth Clarke, who is a contester for the leadership of a national party, anounced that it had been a mistake for him to have backed the euro because it is a 'failure'. [1] I've never understood this - in my home country of Ireland where we use the euro, when it is discussed (which is rare - its just a fact of life) it is generally considered a success - it has lowered transaction costs and increased investment. I think the article should address these issues. Such a section should discuss what the definition of a 'success' or 'failure' of a currency means. Seabhcán 12:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I moved it because it is editorialising, not because I disagree with it (actually I agree with it, but that's irrelevant). But certainly a proper economic analysis of whether the Optimum single currency area theory has proved right would be interesting. (By the way, Pedro, the Liga del Nord don't just want to leave the EU, they want to leave Italy!). --Red King 23:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

by the way...the name of the party is "Lega Nord"... 212.216.208.117 18:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Vatican City vs. Holy See

In the first sentence of the article (The euro (€; ISO 4217 code EUR) is the currency of [...]) I replaced Holy See with Vatican City. The Holy See does rule and represent a state (the Vatican City) on an international level, but it is NOT a state. The council decisions are constantly referring to the Vatican City's right to mint Euro coins and not to the Holy See. 85.124.176.91 09:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Dutch euro slang

I was surprised to not see knaak listed, and promptly added it, as it is one of the most heard nicknames where I live (Rijnmond area). The contrary is also true: I've never heard eazer used. Who can tell me in which area this is used?

Also, I think the Dutch slang item can use a big rewrite. I might do this later today.

And I realise now that pleuro is also missing.

Juerd

I'm a Dutchie too and I'm surprised to hear 'knaak' is still being used as a nickname... I won't delete that (for now ;)) But 'eazer'.. what the hell? I'll remove that one, because it isn't used in the Dutch language.. at all. And I'll add pleuro, 'cause I use that one on a regular basis :D

KrftWerk 03/09/05

Strange, I live in the Rijnmond area as well, and I've not once heard knaak used. Also, pleuro would make it sound "more Dutch"? Isn't it a play on the derogatory word pleuris to describe dislike towards the coin? --Michiel Sikma 20:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

>>>"rug" (the old 1000 guilder note nickname) is mentioned for the 1000 euro note, but 1000 euro notes do not exist :D

New common side

On the final page of this European Commission report, we can see the new designs for the common sides of the euro, to be used from 2007 onwards. Can someone with more image editting skills than I possess grab the images from the pdf and upload them? I could do it myself, but with my kind of expertise it would probably result in very, very ugly images. Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 00:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll do it now, but I'll add it to the euro coins article instead. - TALK ®€Ð¦-¦0† TALK 17:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 18:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright?

I have fixed the spelling of this word, but I don't know about the context I found it in. Does the EU really govern the copying of its currency by means of copyright or is there a stronger basis in law (such as anti-counterfeiting laws in EU and member country law)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elegy (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know (I'm almost positive) there is an anticounterfeiting law to protect them. They also protect them via copyright. I assume the copyright is for possible loopholes in the anti...... laws - RedHotHeat 16:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

OPEC

Does anyone know if OPEC are still considering to change from listing in USD to euro? - TALK ®€Ð¦-¦0† TALK 17:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Mh. I'm not sure, the most promising reads I could find were this and this; especially the second article sounds as if OPEC were slowly but steadily favouring the euro. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 18:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Romania

So is there a plan in place for Romania or not? There's some awkward and contradictory phrasing in the article:

As for Romania (member as of 1 January 2007), it is likely to join the Eurozone in the 2010–12 period. However, there is a clear strategy of the Romanian government at this point to introduce the euro.

Shouldn't that read "However, there is no clear strategy"? Cleduc 05:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


Euro#FIX ASAP

Something odd is going on here, this page needs reversion (somehow all got deleted). ~Anon

Coins

Something definetly needs to be done on the coins pages (the states' coins pages) since, right now it is very unclear what is meant when it says things like "is expected to replace their national currency" as it could mean in trade form (i.e. trade under the code EUR) or in completely (i.e. the former, except in cash as well). Could someone please fix this? I would except I don't know what is meant by them either. (Btw, the reason I put this here, was 'cause it's waaaaaaaaaaaaay easier than adding it to like 10 coin pages) - RedHotHeat 17:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

For me, it was quite clear that this meant the latter. The euro has never replaced a currency only in trade form - even between 1999 and 2002, the other currencies officially existed in both trade form and in cash -, so I'd say it's pretty clear that "A replaces B" means the latter of your two options... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I was also a bit unclear. What I meant was the way officially (in trade) all the old currencies (IEP,FRF,DEM etc.) were replaced in 1999, but in cash, they weren't replaced until 2002. That is what I think is wrong, it doesn't say if it means (using the Estonian Kroon as an example)
  • in 2006 the Estonian Kroon will cease to trade as EEK and begin trading (still in Estonian notes) as EUR
  • in 2006 the Estonian Kroon will cease to trade as EEK changing to EUR, and the cash will come in at the same time
  • in 2006 the Estonian Kroon will cease to trade as EEK changing to EUR, and the cash will come in at another point, but this will also be in 2006.

- RedHotHeat 16:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the critical information you needed is that, on conversion day, the legacy currencies legally became sub-multiples of the euro (fractions of a euro in all cases except Ireland). Just as 50¢ is exactly half of one euro — from that moment on, one portuguese escudo (for example) is exactly 1/200.482th of a euro. This is not just a foreign exchange equivalence, it is a mathematical identity. The fact that the release to the public of physical manifestations of the euro (coins, notes) was delayed for a further two years to permit accounting systems to be changed, matters not at all. The new countries will go through the same timetable: during the transition period, the banks will use euro but will show the equivalent legacy currency value alongside, as a convenience to customers, but shops and street markets will continue to use legacy notes and coinage until the end of the transition period. (Inevitably, some will accept euro notes too, though only for commercial reasons). Unfortunately I don't know the exact timetable you need, but what I would guess is this:
  • in 2006 the Estonian Kroon will cease to trade (wholesale banking) as an independent currency and begin trading as EUR. Retail trade will continue to use EEK notes and coins. (Guess)
  • in 2008 the Estonian Kroon will cease to trade (retail) as EEK, changing to EUR cash. (Guess)
Clearly it would help if someone closer to the facts would provide the exact dates. --Red King 13:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC), --Red King 13:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I did know that about the other currencies (the first ones to join) but my reasoning for doubting it for the future is that
1. The pages aren't as clear
2. Before it wasn't feasable as banks were being introduced to a completely new currency, while now euro already exists so if they wanted they could be preparing for a cash switch now if they wanted.
3. They couldn't've made notes and coins for euro before the exchange was set before since the amount of each required would've depended on the old currencies value relative to it, while now it already exists in cash and (keeping with the example) the Estonian Kroon is already pegged to it.
4. Since it already exists in cash, many people and places may start using it prematurely since it is easily available. Also what would be done about changing money into euro since normally bureaux de change charge for changing money, but they didn't when changing the old currencies into euro, so what will they do (again just to stick with the example) when the Estonian Kroon just becomes a division of EUR. I mean it's not strictly speaking a different currency.
Like I said, I am accepting that explanation you gave me, that just was my reasoning for doubting that system initially. - RHeodt 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the legacy currency pages need to be changed. You need to research this more - is there anything on www.ecb.int?
You are almost certainly right that some traders will jump the gun (who is going to turn down a sale). But there really is a *lot* of work in changing internal systems - from the company accounts on the mainframe down to the tea-club spreadsheet. So organisations do need two years. The Banks could switch early as you say, but for the reason I've just given, they will be under orders not to jump the gun. You can be sure that they'll want every excuse to delay losing their commission on ForEx. I strongly suspect that the same is true of the Bs de C.
The Kroon is pegged by the currency board, but it is yet irrevocably convertible? --Red King 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not. And to the best of my knowledge, what will happen is that on 1 January 2007 – assuming everything goes well – the Estonian kroon will be a subdivision of the euro, and will start to be phased out - not earlier. —Nightstallion (?) 07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Trivia concerning the coins

Just for the convenience of future editors: on his talk page, I queried user:Evertype's decision to change instances of "50c" etc to "50¢" etc, using a symbol (¢) that I've always taken to be an exclusively US usage. With inescapable logic, he replies [reproduced with his permission]: The cent sign, while used in the U.S., is not "a U.S. notation" any more than the dollar sign is "a U.S. notation". "$" can, and does, refer to pesos, dollars, bolivianos, reals, and escudos. The ¥ yen sign is used for the yen as well as the Chinese yuan. The point is that no country owns these currency signs. As the Wikipedia is international, it is certainly the case that "50¢" will be read by everyone as "fifty cents". "50c" on the other hand, reads as "fifty cee" to me. I have, indeed, seen the cent sign used in Ireland, on any number of occasions. There is no reason to proscribe its use or to restrict it to American currency. That seems to me to settle the question. --Red King 13:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, while I find the logic quite convincing it doesn't exactly win me over, partly because of the remark about Ireland, which is clever in that (although possibly not intentionally) it makes it sound like it appears the majority of times, while not saying it outright, since that's not true. I realise it is not a "US-only" kinda thing, but I wouldn't say it's usage in the Eurozone is remarkable (as in its literal term of, you couldn't really make a remark about it). In Ireland (where I also live) you do see it, but I don't think anyone could argue that you see it even near the majority of times. I can also say the same for my recent visits to Spain (but maybe it's just where I was or maybe I just wasn't looking hard enough). I realise that some of the rest of the world will probably do just as he said and read it as "see", but I still don't really agree with using ¢. But I don't care enough to push it or anything, I'm just pointing it out. - RHeodt 20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
As I said to Evertype, I've certainly seen "c." in Holland and France where the gulden and franc had "hundredths" for many years before the euro was even thought of. It did jar to my eye, but then I admit it was a kneejerk reaction to what I saw as yet more "cultural imperialism by laziness". I was certainly disposed to revert it but I'm mollified by Evertype's explanation.

Controversies

The switchover to the Euro was hardly without disent, yet I see very little on either the main page or on this discussion page about that matter. What gives? Sweetfreek 07:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

As with a lot of issues to do with the euro, opinons for mainland Europe are harder to obtain for the English Wikipedia. With regards to Ireland, very little resistance was met. As it says on here people and businesses were very entusiastic about the changeover. One main exception was a number of people (to my knowledge nearly all elderly) complaining about the size of the 1c coin. Another much less withspread (also mainly from elderly) one was that the colour of the €5 and €20 notes were too close (but if they think that's bad then they're lucky they don't live in the US). The former still goes on today (albeit to a much smaller extent) and the latter I haven't heard mentioned since January 2002. - RHeodt 19:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree wtih Mr SweetFreek. This article - despite it's aclaim - presents very little of the anti-euro opinion that is common to Conservative thinking across Europe. How can we ensure their views (not neccessarily mine I add) are reflected in an unbiased fashion in this article? An example of anti-euro reasoning is availabe here ->[2] --Richard@lbrc.org 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Not that I disagree with you (Richard@lbrc.org) but I think what Sweetfreak is saying is different. I think (s)he is talking about the places that HAVE switched to euro. (S)he does say "was hardly without disent". I also agree that there needs to be a more tidy, and better written (with less filler) section on reasons why places don't want to join in future (although I do strongly support the euro, and use it everyday). I don't know, maybe that is was Sweetfreak mean, maybe (s)he'll shed some light on this. - RHeodt 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for joining

I think there should be a more thorough explanation of how the criteria for joining works, and also if one must be a member of the EU to join the Euro or mint your own currency. 81.232.72.53 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I think all of the answers (except maybe that one on criteria) are in the articles but as I used the plural you'll note they are spread around. I agree they should be in one place. Although you may just be suggesting that it be in the article, if you actually don't know, officially you must be a member to join. You could adopt it unofficially but you wouldn't get your own coins or anything. With regards to minting, no you don't have to. Take Luxembourg as an example (they might mint their own coins, although I doubt it but I'm not positive) they don't print any banknotes. - RHeodt 21:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are Luxemburgeois coins (though almost certainly the actual manufacturing is done in another state). But it it is a good comment on the criteria. We say that Greece didn't meet them initially, but we haven't said what they are. --Red King 00:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to mention that Luxembourg do have coins. What I meant was I wasn't sure if they had a mint in Luxembourg to mint them there, since they don't have a banknote printer. - RHeodt 12:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/u/r/Talk%7EEuro_Archive03_f775.html"