Template talk:Euro topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template 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.
Template This article has been rated as template-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
The following discussion was copied from Template talk:EU coins menu, which now redirects here.

This seems completely redundant with Template:Eurocoins--I really can't see why we need both, especially in the same articles--Cypriot euro coins, etc.. 24.17.48.241 15:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and propose we remove the Eurocoins template. The menu template is less ugly. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about "ugly", but I would be inclined to agree, as I certainly would say the right-column format seems less intrusive, and more readily accessible. 24.17.48.241 04:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I meant "ugly" as in "messy as far as layout and design are concerned". 't seems we agree on this, then? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image

As the template is growing more and more I propose excluding the image from this template. --Dima1 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No any comments? --Dima1 (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I personaly still like it, but I have high resolution displays, so it shows perfect for me. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note on Sweden, UK Denmark

I'd like to include a small note at the bottom of the template on the Non-Euro EU members.

Note: EU members Denmark, Sweden and the UK currently maintain their national currencies.

Any objections?Seabhcán 12:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Support, if you use UK instead. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 13:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and added a (slightly modified) note. —Nightstallion (?) 02:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegro and Kosovo

In Montenegro, an independent country, euro € is used, and Kosovo, from Serbia

Indeed, but as neither Kosovo nor Montenegro will be able to mint their own coins until they join the Union and then the eurozone, it's irrelevant for now. —Nightstallion (?) 17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
So I can't stop wondering, what kind (in terms of national) of coins do they use? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Good question. Before the euro, the Balkans mostly relied on the German mark, but I don't think that would make the likelihood of encountering German euro coins any higher... —Nightstallion (?) 22:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
If the coins don't exist, why have an article about them [1] - there was not a Kosovan mark coins article. --Rumping (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel its better to leave Kosovo as 'Misc'. We should avoid disputed about the status of that place (independent nation vs serbian province).Thewikipedian (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template position

Currently, this template is located at the right of the screen. This has caused problems to users with 1024 pixel wide screen (or less) on denomination articles (1 cent ~ 2 euro). I suggest making this template horizontal and place at the bottom.

If I were to take one step further, I would make a "euro related topic" template, where things like "Eurozone", "Currencies related to the euro", "ERM" would all be in that box. We could also place "coins by country" and "coins by denomination" there too. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mh. I prefer it the way it currently is, since it's rather the "related articles" type of template (confer {{Politics of Slovenia}}) than the "see also" type of template (confer {{NATO}}). What did you have in mind? —Nightstallion (?) 12:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
But how do you address the problem of spacing? These articles have huge space to accommodated roughly 60% of the internet users. I'm sorry to say this, but the result is ugly for 100% of the users, regardless of screen resolution. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Mh. Could you show me what kind of change you had in mind? I'm not against changing it out of principle, but I'd like to see first whether we can keep its visual pleasantness. Despite its problems, I really like the way the template currently looks... —Nightstallion (?) 17:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Chochopk/Template sandbox 1. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Three requests:
  • Make it "pre-euro" instead of "pre euro".
  • Keep the distinction between the new member states which will adopt it earlier or later and Andorra/Denmark/Sweden/UK.
  • Keep the short text at the bottom on the situation in Denmark/Sweden/UK.
Apart from that, I think I'm sold. :) —Nightstallion (?) 13:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, when will you make the change? —Nightstallion (?) 09:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Please allow some time. Very busy at wiki and in real life. I aim to have a complete draft for you to review by the end of this weekend. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean to bother or annoy you. Great work! —Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Copied talk content ends here.

Forgive me, but this template is awful. It is far too big, and with far too many topics to be a proper navigational aid. The only relevant section of it to the title is the first, the general topics related to the Euro and Eurozone. There should be seperate navigational templates for the coins (which there was before people took it upon themselves to alter), and for the various other currencies. I for one object to the article about the pound sterling (not the "British Pound" as it is incorrectly labelled) being classed as a "Euro related topic". Hammersfan 15/02/07, 18.10 GMT

Contrary to the previous comment, I find the new template pretty useful, lot more than the earlier. It contains all relevant topics related to the euro as a currency. Although Britain is not a member of the monetary union, it is supposed to be, and th efar future aim for all EU members is to join the euro anyways. Timur lenk 20:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. —Nightstallion (?) 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly against splitting, but allow me to explain the motive behind this template. I created this template as a replacement for Template:EU coins menu and Template:PreEuroCurrencies. The vertical EU coins menu was causing problem for users with smaller screen, so a horizontal format is better. And then I realize there was no euro topic nav box for things like eurozone and currencies related to the euro and the result was a whole bunch of links in the see also section. And often times, if a user is interested in Cyprus and its relationship with the euro, he/she probably wants to read/edit currencies related to the euro, European Exchange Rate Mechanism, Cypriot pound, Cypriot euro coins. I see that the target dates of joining the euro for the new EU members are updated frequently. Having these article links helps consistency.
By the way, just to be clear, Nightstallion is disagreeing with Hammersfan, not with Timur lenk. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oct07 redesign

Looks fantastic! Clear, pleasing to the eye (great image btw) and stylish. I knew it was you SSJ, good work! - J Logan t: 09:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye! —Nightstallion 22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! - S. Solberg J. 16:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ECU • ERM • EMU

I would have thought ECU • ERM • EMU would be better spelt out [2] than left as I • II • III. People looking for these (e.g. me) find it difficult to find these topics if we have to rely on mouseovers. --Rumping (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rumping on this issue. Using the actual abbreviations seems more informative. In addition to Rumping's original point, I might add that a researcher might not think to mouseover I • II • III to find the underlying topics. Perhaps a happy compromise might be in order for this template. I propose using ECU(I) • ERM(II) • EMU(III) in the template, if Ssolbergj is still very adamant about expressing the three step process. --Theeuro (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tried it that way and it looks confusing. So it is back with the abbr. --Theeuro (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
My argument is that they were step 1, 2 and 3 of the EU's single currency plan (the European Monetary System). The chronological steps justify their place under 'history'. If they're just some abbreviations, mentioning EMU (the last step which still is active and therefore is under 'topics' as well) twice would be redundant for example. "ECU", "ERM" and "EMU" are three confusing abbreviations. Numbers and chronology are easier to understand. - S. Solberg J. 13:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
But then since the Exchange Rate Mechanism is still active it too should be a topic and the European Currency Unit should be spelt out as a former currency. I II III is just unhelpful. --Rumping (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes the ERM is still active in some countries, but ERM is and was a tool on the path towards the single currency. May I suggest you read the EMS European Monetary System article? The numbers make perfect sense. - S. Solberg J. 23:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we disagree about what the history was or the present actually is, just the best presentation. --Rumping 18:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That the history and/or present situation of these three composites of the Euro is not in dispute. Rumping makes a very good point when he says '...best presentation'. Having ECU • ERM • EMU instead of I • II • III speaks more to the researchers' ability to get to the relevant article. Should we have a vote? - The € • T/C 05:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No it's not about presentation; the point is that if they aren't numbers, (or pointed out as chronological steps in this template) the sense disappears. To divide the EMS into three numbered steps is an established practice, I didn't make it up. - S. Solberg J. 00:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think both arguments are valid. Why don't we simply use both? —Nightstallion 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I had in mind. :) —Nightstallion 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks so much better. Way to compromise, S. Solberg J.!
-The € • T/C 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)