Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics

	This project page 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.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating.

1 Article titles
2 Lists
3 Currency names
4 denomination capitalization
5 Denominations are to start with capital letters.
6 Pick & Krause use capitalisation for denominations.
7 Mistakes in ISO 4217
- 7.1 Naming convention:Currencies proposal
8 Argentine currencies
9 Guilder vs gulden
10 Finnish markka
11 Irish pound
12 Names of 14th century silver coins?

[edit] Article titles

[The following paragraph was originally posted on the main Wikiproject Numismatics talk page since I didn't realize there was a style page.Mom2jandk 17:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)] There are some style inconsistencies in existing articles and categories. We should pick a style to use, "coins of France", "French coinage", or "French coins". Also, we should pick between "banknote" and "paper money". As in, "French banknotes" or "French paper money". I don't personally have a preference as far as coins go. I prefer "banknotes" to "paper money", but don't really care. Mom2jandk 05:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[The following paragraph was originally posted on the main Wikiproject Numismatics talk page since I didn't realize there was a style page.Mom2jandk 17:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)]

My vote goes for French banknotes and French coins; banknotes is stilistically nicer than paper money, IMO, and the equivalent to French banknotes is clearly French coins.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote banknotes #1 and currency as a backup. "French coins" should be used for modern seris coins, but I think maybe we should use a "Coinage of France" type for historicals and such. Joe I 21:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, "currency" would be inappropriate since it technically includes coins. So, "French currency" would be about all forms of French money. What's out there now (generally -- I'm not sure about France specifically) is some combination of "French currency", "French coins", "French banknotes", "French franc", "French <obsolete currecy name>", etc. There is always a "<Country> <denomination>" page, but when there is less information and/or interest, there's not always a "<Country> currency" page. Mom2jandk 23:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with "banknote" is that not all paper money is issued by a bank. Whilst the two terms are generally interchangeable, this fact must must be borne in mind.
Dove1950 13:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. So, are we stuck with "Paper money", or would "Note" work? It's not my area of interest. Mom2jandk 20:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

I disagree that "Ancient coins" is a good name for a list. I think "Ancient coins" should be reserved for an article about Ancient coins. That's what I'd expect to find as a reader.Mom2jandk 17:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, "list" should always proceed the title if that's all the article is, is a list. Joe I 21:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

While we're talking about lists: When you add links to non-existant currency articles, please be sure not to capitalize the curreny name itself, only the country/demonym.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Currency names

Just wanted to add that I really like Mom2jandk's additions. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added some more. The last one may not be completely clear (when to use currency & when to use currencies). Please let me know if I need to explain further. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Categories for more examples. Mom2jandk 04:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Something else that needs discussion is how to name an article about a specific coin/banknote. Here are some examples which illustrate a few points: 100 krone (Denmark), 1804 silver dollar, Belly button Dollar, British Ten Pence coin. I'd think they should be Danish 100 krone (Style says: users choice whether to use "100" or "one hundred", or we could recommend one or the other); United States 1804 silver dollar; United States belly button dollar (Style says: it's okay to use a nickname for a coin); British ten pence coin (Style says: users choice to include "coin" or "banknote" or not, or maybe we should recommend it). Capitalization becomes more complex as well since the nickname of a coin could be considered a proper name requiring capitalization. Any thoughts? Mom2jandk 04:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I also noticed this, but since I know little about actual Numismatics and am more knowledgeable about currencies per se... Well, what I do know is that British coin Florin looks ugly, and that seems to be one type of standard currently in use for British coins. Gah.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all your capitalizations. In all situations I can think of, the actual name of the coin(florin, dollar, pound, etc...) should not be a proper noun and should not be capitalized. I'd prefer 100 over one hundred, looks cleaner. And in most cases I think it should be "coin" or "banknote"/"bill". Joe I 21:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

In general I'd agree, with one exception, which is names taken directly (i.e., without translation) from German, where all nouns are capitalized. Deutschemark must be capitalized, for example.
Dove1950 13:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Except for the fact that "Deutschemark" is, in fact, not a German word. "Deutschemark" isn't a word at all; it's called deutsche Mark. Since we're in the English Wikipedia, however, I'd advocate using English rules for capitalization.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 14:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe this article should be "United States Dollar" rather than "... dollar", and all specific references to the USD should capitalize the word. This is an official monetary unit (and, therefore, a "title"). Essentially, the difference in reference is between "a dollar" (a value) and "The Dollar" (a title). RadioKirk 06:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Currenct consensus is not to capitalize currency units.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I must persist: First, that's an oversimplification; second, "consensus" and "correct" are not synonymous. I can concede to "the dollar", "the pound", "the drachma", etc., but when it is specifically used as part of its official designation ("the United States Dollar", "the English Pound", "the Greek Drachma"), it is titular, and capitalization is correct. I'm still searching for corresponding reference material. RadioKirk 18:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This Web page overrules me. I'm not exactly sure when this happened, but, absent something contrary, I guess I'll leave this be, if grudgingly... RadioKirk 18:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] denomination capitalization

Within an article, should we use the local plural form, or the English? This has come up at Yugoslav dinar where I switched it from dinars to dinara and someone else switched it back. Clearly, I prefer dinara, but am curious what others think. Mom2jandk 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of the domestic, but it might surprise some readers (think of African languages where the plural looks like an entirely different word to the uneducated reader).

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm "someone else" who switched it back. I did if for a simple reason that on Wikipedia common rule is to use English plurals. Croats, not Hrvati. It's sakes, not... however Japanese say plural of sake. I mean, how would someone from Japan figure out that "dinara" is plural of "dinar"? I think it's best to stick to English. We risk less confusion. And we're consistent, I'm a consistency freak. --Dijxtra 21:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What really matters here is that the article states what the plural is (or are) so that a reader cannot get confused when looking at a coin or banknote. How the denominations are given in the rest of the article is less important (I would use dinara) but it ought to be consistent within each article.
Dove1950 13:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Plural of sake would be sake, incidentally, since Japanese doesn't usually inflect nouns to indicate plural. ;) I'd say state in the intro what the domestic plural is and use the English plural henceforth.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion is, use the local form of the plural. It follows from the "use the local spelling with special characters" rule about the article title. If we're going to go to the effort of naming the page Polish złoty then the least we can do is to stay consistent with the name throughout the article. I'm not sure I am particularly happy about the "use the local name" rule for article titles but let's be consistent. Either use the English name in the title and then use English plurals, or stick to local names. Markkawika 05:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Very good. The article uses English name. Therefore, use English plural. If you used local name, then you should use 4 different names in the article title. Check out obverse of every banknote. It has 4 different names on it, because 4 different names were coequal: Croatian, Macedonian, Slovenian and Serbian. "dinara" is only Croatian and Serbian plural, and it is only spelled equally, it is accentuated differently in these two languages. In Slovenian it is "dinarjev" and in Macedonian "dinari". So, be consistent and use English plural or rename. To 4 different names. :-)

As always, this is only my oppinion and I will comply with decission of majority. --Dijxtra 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Denominations are to start with capital letters.

~~Coin denominations themselves, such as Rhodesian Dollar must start with a capital letter. - (Aidan Work 06:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC))~~

Definitely not in this case, since Rhodesian dollar is a currency, and currencies are not to be capitalized.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid, you are not correct. As I am a numismatist, I have always started denominations & currency units with capital letters. I don't know of anyone in the numismatic trade who starts a currency denomination with a lower case letter. You can see my articles Coins of Rhodesia & Coins of Cyprus among other articles. - (Aidan Work 02:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

In regards to the two last articles you mentioned; they are ok as it is the first word. For other uses, current policy states that they are to start with a lower case letter, like just about everything else (with the exception of names). Bjelleklang - talk 03:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bjelleklang, if you have read Coins of Cyprus, you will see that the currency units (Mils) starts with a capital letter. - (Aidan Work 06:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Nothing personal, Aidan, but I don't think your personal style should serve as an example for all of us – the formatting in those two articles is horrible. Too many empty sections, full stops in section headers in the Cypriot one, style in general and too many one-line paragraphs in the Rhodesian one (albeit it is formatted far better than the other article). Again, nothing personal, but I wouldn't expect everyone to adopt your style any time soon.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Naming conventions say that all but the first word should be lower case, except if the word is a proper noun. The disagreement appears to be whether franc, dollar, mark, mil etc. are proper nounds or not. I don't believe they are. Merriam-Webster doesn't seem to think so [1]. None of the numismatic books I have seem to think so (they all use lower case for the denomination). Aidan, can you cite anything more than "I'm a serious numismatist and I capitalise the denomination"? I don't mean to offend you at all, so I apologize in advance if I sound that way. I certainly want to be correct, and I certainly do not claim to be a serious numismatist. I am not one. But can you cite any sources besides your own usage? Markkawika 11:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pick & Krause use capitalisation for denominations.

Markkawika, the Pick & Krause catalogues always start a currency denomination with a capital letter. You will find that nearly all numismatic catalogues also adhere to this trend, which is why a capital letter must be used. - (Aidan Work 02:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

On the other hand, compare this website from the discussion further above.

^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 07:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting, Nightstallion. They discuss it in terms of title style versus headline style. Apparently title style (as in the title of a book) would be to capitalize it, as in US Dollar. Headline style would call for it to not be capitalized: US dollar. In encyclopedia articles, we use headline style, not title style. Thus our currency titles should be US dollar. However, that article also brings up the issue of using English names for the currency (zloty versus złoty, dong versus đồng). I suspect we need to revise our rules to use English terms only, but with lower-case. This is my opinion. Markkawika 08:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly - no. "English names" would mean to use "Slovenian dollar" instead of "Slovenian dollar", and... no. Simply no. We're already only using Latin letters, and that's fine. The only thing in question is whether to capitalize currencies or not; since currencies are widely not regarded as proper nouns (I think someone above linked to Merrian-Webster and a few other dictionaries), I think we should not capitalize currencies.

^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 15:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mistakes in ISO 4217

We have a pedant in our midst who insists on calling the Lebanese livre a pound, in clear contranvention of the fact that the word pound has never appeared on a single Lebanese coin or note. Unfortunately, ISO 4217 uses the word pound and our pedant has now noticed this. I'm reverting to livre as it is clearly correct (Lebanese pound redirects to Lebanese livre) but we need to change this style to make it clear that we do not slavishly follow ISO 4217's mistakes.
Dove1950 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur absolutely. While many ISO standards are well compiled and splendid work, ISO 4217... well, just isn't. —Nightst a llion (?) 07:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

When I reverted this article back to "Lebanese pound" I was just following Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Whereas Dove1950 has made his changes not based on any policy and without any discussion. I'll move it back to Lebanese pound until a consensus is reached and this policy is rewritten. CG 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly only one user wants to use the name Lebanese pound. I propose the following change to the relevant part of this style. We should remove the first section and state that the rules set out apply to all currencies, not just those not listed in ISO 4217. We could also add a list of those whose article title differs from ISO 4217.
Dove1950 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't take me wrong. I'm not opposed to the "livre" name, but to the way that it doesn't follow any policy, unless these policies get some changes. Cheers. CG 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

While only one user may be objecting to this specific page, there were more objections when we were talking about "New Taiwan dollar" and "Singapore dollar". Also, "Pound sterling", "euro", and "renminbi" were examples that were given without any thought of changing the page names. As I recall, you (Dove1950) and I once talked about "Deutsch Mark"/"German mark", and you were in favor of "Deutsch Mark" (although I'm stating that from memory, and may be wrong).

I also would prefer a consistent style which doesn't involve ISO 4217. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics and follow the link to the archive to see the specifics of the vote on ISO 4217 -- no one voted against it (including me, for the record, since I was trying to get away from spending so much time on page names, but here I go again). Wikipedia naming conventions (common names) is very clear. "Lebanese pound" is the common name (do a google search -- 1.87 million hits for "Lebanese pound", 161 for "Lebanese livre"). I agree that it "should" be livre, but Wikipedia's policy is clear that it's not what's "correct", it's what's "common". If we want to have a style guide that contradicts "use common names", we need to create Naming conventions (currency), or something. I don't think this would be a bad idea, but I don't want to do the work myself. Ingrid 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I could find the time, I'd involve myself, but I doubt I could draw up a NC all by myself... Anyone interested in collaborating? —Nightst a llion (?) 08:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in any more arguments about what the convention should be and why. I would be willing to help out in the writing and procedure stuff. It's not like I'm working on anything else :) Ingrid 04:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting situation that I just stumbled across is the various Argentine pesos. These each have their own articles, which don't match our style guide. I don't know if they should be renamed though (if so, to what?). Argentine peso, Peso argentino, Argentine peso ley, Peso moneda nacional (the last doesn't exist yet, but when it does, what should it be called?). Ingrid 20:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my naivity but is it the case that Wikipedia's policy is to repeat common mistakes just because they're common? I do hope not. I agree that arguments over article names take up time that could be spent improving and writing new articles but there isn't much point in developing an encyclopedia full of mistakes. As to the style in question, the changes are very stright forward. We just remove ISO 4217 and use the style already written for those currencies not in ISO 4217, thereby achieving complete consistency.
Dove1950 14:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point which I hadn't really considered. The naming convention does not address what to do if the common name is incorrect. I think that's definitely an argument for having our own naming convention. It's not as simple as just changing it though. If we create a new naming convention, we will have to get support from the project (I think overwhelming support) and then take it to the entire Wiki community where I imagine there will be some resistance to creating an exception to the existing guidelines. There was opposition when it was suggested that New Taiwan dollar be moved to Taiwanese new dollar or something similar. And in that case, I see their point. The bills say "New Taiwan dollar" on them. I'm sure there would be even more argument if "Pound Sterling" was to be moved to "British pound". That's the part of it that I don't want to get involved with. And I'm not sure how to formulate the convention so that exceptions are allowed for "common names which are not incorrect" or some such. Ingrid 16:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep things interesting, I'll add another confusing one. Luxembourgish franc is in the wrong place (Luxembourgish is the name of the language and the people, not the general adjectival form). This is something Aidan Work did for his own reasons. CIA World Factbook does include Luxembourg and says Luxembourg is the adjectival form. Several dictionaries I've checked agree it's Luxembourgian. I can't just move the page because there's already something at Luxembourgian franc (a redirect, but it's been edited). So, I need to get an admin to help, and don't know which to use. Ingrid 16:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the franc. The fact that ISO is in fact wrong a number of times was also my reason for being in favour of our own naming convention. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Another one that will not be named properly except by exception is Maria Theresa thaler which I guess would be Austrian thaler, but no one would know what we were talking about. Also, it's "wrong" to call it Maria Theresa thaler when the coins say "Maria Theresia" (at least the one with a picture in my copy of SCWC says that). Ingrid 14:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A few points on this theme. First, Republic of China (i.e., Taiwan) banknotes do not say New Taiwan Dollar on them. Early notes have yuan in Latin script, later notes only have the Chinese character for yuan on them. Second, my OED gives no adjective for Luxembourg, so we're on our own on that one. Third, we need to distinguish two aspects of this problem. One is the name of the article. Here the onus must be on findability but any common, yet incorrect names can be accomodated by a redirect. The other is what the text of the article should say. Here the onus is on accuracy, with the debunking of common mistakes probably a useful addition.
Dove1950

I misunderstood what was said in the vote about renaming at the project talk page. Apparently, "New Taiwan dollar" is the official name given on the English version of the The Central Bank of China website. The whole yuan/won/yen = dollar thing is tricky in Asia since they don't use the same alphabet, so it's harder to justify using the local name vs. the official English version. After the amount of time I spent trying to implement the old naming conventions, I decided to just make sure there were redirects from all "Adj denom" names so I could use them consistently in List of currencies and succession boxes.

I am willing to write a proposal for our own naming convention, if you still think that's a good idea, and can get support from the project, and can give me an idea of what it should be. I mean, how do you say that "Lebanese pound" is incorrect when pound is a translation of livre. It is inconsistent with our style, but that doesn't make it inherently wrong. I'd rather call the page Lebanese livre myself, but don't want to try to convince anyone else. Ingrid 20:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd highly appreciate it if you tried to work on a naming convention, and would gladly help with the details. —Nightst a llion (?) 21:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I can come up with a simple argument for Lebanese livre when needed. Unfortunately, I'm too wet behind the ears on Wikipedia to know how this "politics" works. Point me in the right direction and I'll put the facts in place.
Dove1950 21:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the politics of Wikipedia very well either, but I think the steps to take are:

draft a proposal (I'll write it with you guys helping with the content).
get approval from the project (revise as needed to gain wide support -- if we can't, stop here).
find out where to submit it for general wiki approval (post on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions should get me pointed in the right direction)

The results of the vote on Timor Leste don't leave me too confident (that is a case where there is a clear reason to consider Timor Leste the only "correct" name, and yet the vote was to use East Timor anyway), but I'm willing to try. Below is an outline (please add reasons and examples and whatever supporting information you can -- when I've got enough, I'll write it up all nice). Edit away below without signing, and talk here. Ingrid 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should use CFA franc as an example. The current page is incorrect, and it's on my to do list to fix it up. It needs to be split into several pages, I think. Currently, there are two, and I believe their common names are CFA franc BEAC and CFA franc BCEAO (that's what ISO 4217 uses, and I've seen it elsewhere). I'd rather use West African CFA franc and Central African CFA franc as that's what the coins and notes say (in French). Also, the BEAC and BCEAO are relatively recent organizations (1994, I think), but the previous organizations covered similar areas. There was also a Malagasy-Comoros CFA franc, and perhaps others. Like I said, the page needs work. Let me get some more facts and give better details for what I think the page names should be and why. Ingrid 15:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention:Currencies proposal

Reasons calling for a NC:Currencies
- Many obsolete currencies, especially from before the 20^th century, don't have an unambiguous common name.
- Common names are "wrong" on a number of occasions (for instance, the common name for the Lebanese currency is Lebanese pound, while the actual bank notes feature livre instead).
- One of the stated purposes of Wikipedia naming conventions is to make "guessed" link names more likely to be right (find link). For many currencies, the common names are inconsistent, and there's no way to guess unless you're already very familiar with the currency (examples: Singapore dollar, but Australian dollar).
- ISO 4217, a logical basis for a naming convention for currencies, contains a number of oddities and inexplicable strange names (e.g.: Franc congolais instead of Congolese franc).
What we propose:
- Use the basis <adjectival country/region name> <local currency name>, with exceptions for which the common name is extremely widely known and does not match, or where <adjectival country/region name> is never used at all (e.g.: euro instead of European Union euro, CFA franc instead of BCEAO franc and BEAC franc, renminbi instead of Chinese yuan, New Taiwan dollar instead of Taiwanese new dollar, etc. -- the proposal needs to have a complete list here as they will be part of the convention).
- To find adjectival country name, use a dictionary (the CIA World Factbook gives the adjectival form, but only for current countries, and their choices don't always match common use or "correct" use according to a dictionary -- examples here)
- include non-ASCII chars in denomination
Why we propose this:
- Most common names use this basic form
- translating denominations is problematical because many share similar roots. Many common names of currencies could be translated but aren't (e.g., yen and peso can both be translated as dollar)
- include the country name always because so many currencies use the same denomination, and it would be hard to know when creating a link if there is an obsolete currency with the same name.

[edit] Argentine currencies

I changed the Argentine currencies so now I think that they are consistent with Wikipedia style. Please let me know your opinions. Alpertron 02:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Argentine peso argentino Argentine peso ley Argentine austral Argentine peso Argentine real Argentine argentino :) Joe I 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

... and Argentine peso moneda nacional. Well, there were a lot of currencies because of inflation and hyperinflation in several periods of Argentine history. Anyway, articles for Argentine peso fuerte and Argentine peso oro sellado (convertible currencies) are still missing. Alpertron 11:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guilder vs gulden

At Talk:Dutch_gulden#Guilder_vs_Gulden we have a bit of a problem. The word guilder has been used for the name of the Dutch currency for five hundred years, and there seems to be no real reason to prefer the unfamiliar term gulden. Dove1950 has suggested there that the "rule" is to use "local names" but I've pointed out that this can't be the actual practice of the Wkipedia, so long as you use the word ruble, which is the English name, the Russian name being рубль which would have its "local name" form as rubl’ if this style guideline were a hard-and-fast rule. So... gulden should redirect to guilder because the usual English name should be used, just as it is for ruble, shouldn't it? If not, why not? Evertype 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Then such exception (and all exceptions) should be documented in the style guide. --Chochopk 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whilst it is true that guilder outscores gulden on Google, this encyclopedia cannot allow itself to fall victim to inaccuracy just because it's common. The comparison with ruble is unfair since that involves a switch in alphabet which the encyclopedia cannot accomodate (let alone my keyboard). Nontheless, this article does seek to give the proper form in cyrillic. When no problem with alphabet exists, it makes perfect sence to use the local form (since this is the form which appears on all currency and the article is about the currency) and to ensure that any alternative names get directed appropriately and are explained.
Dove1950 22:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My turn to say "nonsense". Guilder may outscore gulden on Google, but it also trumps gulden in the OED. FIVE HUNDRED YEARS the name of this currency has been "guilder" in English, and it's ridiculous, really, to suggest that preferring "guilder" to "gulden" is in any way "inaccurate". Discussing a "switch in alphabet" (you mean transliteration) is NOT unfair. "Local name" (which you invoked) is "local name", and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't insist on "ruble" (which is English) over "rubl'" which is an "accurate" Latin transliteration of the "local" Russian "рубль". You've been saying that the "decision" has been to take the "local" name over the "English" name -- yet if you choose "gulden" as the local name then you have to choose either "рубль" or "rubl'" for the local name of the Russian currency. And if you don't, and accept the English name "ruble", then you've no reason not to accept the English name "guilder", which also happens to be the name used in ISO 4217. It seems to me that the "policy" needs further work. Evertype 23:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest changes to the style guide, but it needs to have consistency of some sort IMO. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this what I am doing? Look, the style guide says use ISO 4217, which calls this currency Netherlands guilder not Dutch gulden. The argument that the "local" name should be used can't be applied like a law, as I pointed out with the example of ruble. I propose that Netherlands guilder be the name of the article in question, and that the Style manual reflect this. Also, articles should be checked against ISO 4217. This would help to avoid argument. Evertype 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you make an excllent point that we should use rubl' rather than ruble. I shall suggest this and see what results. Frankly, I don't care what the English name is. The real name of this currency was gulden and that's all that matters. The style guide choice of ISO 4217 has been under discussion for some time and we really need to get rid of it because it isn't self consistent, whereas using the loacal name or a transliteration thereof is. It's also a lot more useful if the Latin alphabet is employed since the local name is what actually appears on the currency. Show me a Dutch coin or banknote with guilder written on it.
Dove1950 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The policy you espouse here doesn't make sense for a general encylopaedia. The name in Dutch of the currency was "gulden". The name in English of the currency was "guilder" for centuries. There is no "real name". Wikipedia does not have articles about Germany filed under "Deutschland", and it's wrong-headed to force users to read articles with non-English names in them. I object to this in the same way that I object to the s-less plural of euros. You're trying to change the English language by replacing perfectly good lexemes on an arbitrary basis, and the fact that you suggest that rubl' is a credible name for the ruble is an example of a policy which does not serve the end user of the encyclopaedia. Evertype 17:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So you advocate replacing accuracy with ignorance? Wonderful, a shining example of how an encyclopedia should be constructed. Tell you what, why don't you go and change all mentions of Beijing to Peking while you're at it. Gulden is not "non-English" as it was used by those who knew the correct name. As examples, I direct you to Krause and Mishler's "Standard Catalog of World Coins" and Pick's "Standard Catalog of World Paper Money".
Dove1950 20:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Dove on this. ISO 4217 is a very bad standard, as it's inconsistent, partially factually wrong, and grammatically questionable. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, all units are capitalized. Have you heard "5 Kilograms of food"? --Chochopk 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish markka

I _really_ don't want to get involved in this debate again. But can someone explain why Finnish mark is an exception? It seems like a classic case of translation. If we translate this one, why not translate gulden->guilder, koruna->crown, tolar/peso/yen->dollar and all the others. Ingrid 13:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote for changing it to Finnish spelling markka. --Chochopk 22:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is with Swedish/Finnish spelling; we'd have the same issues with Belgian (German/French/Dutch), Bosnia-Herzegovina (Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian), and possibly other countries with more than one official language. I'd also be in favour of markka in principle, though. —Nightst a llion (?) 11:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

True. Must update style guide for multi-lingual countries. --Chochopk 23:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish pound

For information: an "Irish pound" versus "Irish punt" debate has started at Talk:Irish pound --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)