Template talk:Exchange Rate

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.
Per discussion below (#Principle of quoting exchange rate on an arbitrary date) and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics, exchange rate snapshot has been removed. For its old instruction, see [1].

Contents

[edit] Discussion

This table's criteria seem absurd to me. While the Swiss franc is completely backed by gold and the per capita income of the Swiss is high, the Turkish new lira started sliding again just like the old one because of overprinting and the per capita income of the Turks is low. That Turkey has ten times as much population as Switzerland makes Turkey as important? Please! --Q43 13:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I can see your point. But ultimately, I didn't include the Turkish new lira, nor did I include Indonesian rupiah, which also has a bad record of inflation. I'd like to make 2 points about the table.
  1. It is just a tool for making such decision. By no mean should we follow this table blindly.
  2. At the same time, it is a necessary data for make such decision.
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed 6 of those currencies. While they might be noteworthy locally in some regions, they are not of consequence internationally. The Chinese currency may be re-added at a later date as the economy becomes more and more influential, however at this time it's not absolutely crucial to the world's economy. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

JPY is definitely more significant than AUD and CHF. IMHO, the original list is adaquet. It somewhat matches the list on xe.com. And it is possible to extend the template so that additional currencies can be optioanally added. Reverting now. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean to remove the yen. My bad on that. But my point remains valid, that table still includes a rather large amounts of unnecessary currencies. I don't think currencies such as Brazilian Reais and Mexican Pesos are of huge significance globally. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line is, we have different threshold of "significance". The two of us can argue all day long here what the threshold should be. The truth is, it's arbitrary. How do you propose we resolve this? Bring this up to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem With This Template

I realized that when I made some changes that were useful to the Turkish new lira in its own article, those changes affected all articles where this template is used! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Q43 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

This is what a template is for, for things that are common to many article. So when you need to change something, e.g. remove a "major" currency, you only need to do it in one place. and you don't need to duplicate the effort. --Chochopk 18:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but what happens when in a certain article one needs to add a "minor" currency? --Q43 13:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a way, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Foreach and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Array. But I'm afraid this is not my priority now. --Chochopk 02:41, 15 June 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 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I would like to hear more opinions from others. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table Historical exchange rates...

What if we listed Historical exchange rates? For example, the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus provides historical rates for the Belarusian ruble. You would get the information from the countries web site (assuming they provide it). If no information is provided on the countries web site The CIA's | The World Factbook has the data compares other countries currency to the United States dollar.

I am not an expert at tables, but it could look something like this:

--Historical Exchange Averages--

Period Belarusian rubel official average exchange rate against
Russian ruble US dollar Euro
2005      
January 77.63 2 171.65 2 857.53
February 77.43 2 166.95 2 818.42
January – February 77.53 2 169.30 2 837.91
March 78.00 2 154.23 2 844.05
January – March 77.69 2 164.26 2 839.95
April 77.40 2 152.76 2 788.09
January – April 77.62 2 161.38 2 826.90
May 76.97 2 150.05 2 734.26
January – May 77.49 2 159.11 2 808.12
June 75.43 2 149.59 2 618.80
April – June 76.60 2 150.80 2 712.79
January – June 77.14 2 157.52 2 775.64
July 74.90 2 149.57 2 589.78
January – July 76.82 2 156.38 2 748.30
August 75.46 2 149.65 2 642.05
January – August 76.65 2 155.54 2 734.78
September 75.79 2 150.82 2 638.32
July – September 75.38 2 150.01 2 623.27
January – September 76.55 2 155.02 2 723.89
October 75.28 2 150.14 2 585.36
January – October 76.42 2 154.53 2 709.71
November 74.76 2 149.43 2 538.10
January – November 76.27 2 154.06 2 693.64
December 74.68 2 151.00 2 551.38
October – December 74.90 2 150.19 2 558.20
July – December 75.14 2 150.10 2 590.53
January – December 76.14 2 153.81 2 681.49

I copied the table's source from the | National bank of the Republic of Belarus.

You do not need to provide as much information. It could just use quarterly averages or even annual averages.

You can find annual averages comparing countries currency to the United States dollar on | The World Factbook and | Federal Reserve Board: G.5A Release-- Foreign Exchange Rates.

[edit] Confusing formatting

The formatting chosen is highly confusing. By looking like a section header, it invites the user to expect to see an edit-section hyperlink and (worse) be able to see it in the TOC.

I would like to convert it to a captioned table, similar to the below:

Current TWD exchange rates
Use Yahoo! Finance: AUD CAD CHF EUR GBP HKD JPY USD
Use XE.com: AUD CAD CHF EUR GBP HKD JPY USD

Please discuss here. –EdC 22:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternate formatting using navbox class:
Current TWD exchange rates
Use Yahoo! Finance: AUD CAD CHF EUR GBP HKD JPY USD
Use XE.com: AUD CAD CHF EUR GBP HKD JPY USD
–EdC 23:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The nav box look can be confusing, because the links are not navigational. Many readers are probably used to the look and feel of wikipedia navbox, and this look and feel would be counter intuitive. I'm not against the first proposal. But the question is... if the mock section header is removed, under what section should we place this template? Before this template existed, such links are hard-coded by brute force like
===Current NIO exchange rates=== 
[http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?amt=1&from=AUD&to=NIO&submit=Convert AUD] | 
[http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?amt=1&from=CAD&to=NIO&submit=Convert CAD] | 
...
So I created this template in the mind of reducing copied-and-pasted stuff and avoiding human error. So if a new section header is to be created, like
==Current NIO exchange rates==
{{Exchange Rate|NIO}}
then it would partially defeat the purpose of templates... If no new sections are created, then where do we put it? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, putting true section headers in templates doesn't work, because it screws up section editing, but fake section headers are confusing in their own way (confusing content with presentation). So, Template:Exchange Rate needs to work with or without a section header. That's why I suggested using a navbox-style class; it does make some sense if you think of the exchange rate links as external links. Here's an alternate example using the toccolours class:
Current TWD exchange rates
Use Yahoo! Finance: AUD CAD CHF EUR GBP HKD JPY USD
Use XE.com: AUD CAD CHF EUR GBP HKD JPY USD
The idea is that it should work as a drop-in replacement, but a section header could also be added, as simple as ==Current exchange rates==. EdC 14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)–

[edit] Currencies

I've reverted to the Bloomberg currencies (as also used at money). Can we discuss any further changes? +Hexagon1 (t) 10:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I have no problem using bloomberg's "benchmark" currencies. I just felt that CNY is now more significant than HKD. The economy of mainland China is much bigger than that of HK, and is growing much faster. And CNY is not following one currency anymore, where as HKD is still pegged at a narrow band with USD. That's just how I view it. What about adding an option to add additional foreign currency that is important in terms of trade. For example, for Kazakhstan, the additional foreign currency would be RUB. For South Korea, it could be CNY. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
While I agree CNY has become a significant currency, any arbitrary cut-off for currencies would be WP:OR. While we might agree on 7 currencies (for example), someone might come along and dislike the last two currencies so he starts arguing for 5. Then someone from the nation using the sixth currency would disagree, and this could very rapidly deteriorate into an edit war (a similar thing happened at First World recently). I think following Bloomberg's standards is the best and least conflict-prone solution. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to open the Pandora box either. What do you think about the option to add another currency outside the 8 Bloomberg currencies? I understand WP:NOR and know what it is intended, but I think adhering to that rule strictly may hurt that the spreading of knowledge. In this instance, "the most important" trading partner to a country is probably not even OR. The CIA world factbook provides such data. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Done, with up to 3 currencies allowed. Also converted to template doc page pattern. –EdC 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
While the Chinese currency may be important regionally, it is not a benchmark global currency (yet). In any case, making exceptions for particular currencies would unfortunately fall under what you called "open[ing] the Pandora box", soon we'd have people elaborating on how essential the inclusion of the North Korean won is. I like EdC's custom currency solution, well devised. +Hexagon1 (t) 11:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I proposed in the first place.... >_< --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my appologies, I misunderstood you! Now your reference seems obvious but then I mustn't have been thinking straight. Good that EdC was WP:BOLD and and implemented your solution. +Hexagon1 (t) 11:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Site

Now that another Pandora box has been opened. Now we have 3 websites for exchange rate. As discussed before, someone could come along, and argue that an xyz exchange rate website is "the" website for exchange rate. I'd like to limit this discussion to the 4 best known website for exchange rate, and evaluate them.

accurate covers all currencies graph historical has inverse rate on the same page w/o clicking
Yahoo almost looks like so some No No
XE more so than the others Yes No Yes Yes
Oanda almost looks like so No Yes Yes
Google not enough significant digits no TJS, BAM Yes No No

How do I know if the numbers of a website are "accurate"? There are a number of currencies pegged to the euro. The fixed exchange rate is well known. You can easily search them on the internet, or even more easily, on the respective central bank websites. If the number matches, then it is said to be accurate. "Historical" column means detail numeric values on historical data, not just a graph.

I am incline to keep the current 3 sites, but change oanda to "daily exchange rate for the past year". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

oanda.com does have graph info - its at http://www.oanda.com/products/fxgraph/fxgraph.shtml - but it is no longer reachable from their home page so I guess it puts too much load on their server. So probable best to leave the table as saying "no"? --Red King 22:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For those who keeping adding google to the template, please see table above. Yes, Google is notable but it has serious deficiencies. When/if these are rectified, it can be added. --Red King 22:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)