Template talk:Infobox Currency

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.

Contents

[edit] Slang terms

Many I suggest about somewhere putting the popular local slang words for currency in the list, like quid (GBP), buck/greenback (USD) or loonie/huard (CAD). 159753 20:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I will also add "plural of main unit", "plural of subunit", ERM withdraw date. --Chochopk 20:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other uses

This would be usefull for outdated non european currencies, but need a 'replced ? and replaced by which currently cant do. Enlil Ninlil 08:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Eg Malian franc

I definitely thought about this. But it is proven inappropriate a few months ago because the "replace" relationship is not linear: it transcends time and space. Take a look at the succession boxes at the bottom of East African shilling and Malaya and British Borneo dollar and you will understand. ERM is a unique thing in history that interests a lot of people, and is representable in this infobox. 20 some currencies would make use of this so that's why I decided to put it there. The country infobox also has "EU ascension date". --Chochopk 09:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIA World Fact Book

The correct title for the "CIA World Fact Book" is The World Factbook. I'll change the example above. – Zntrip 00:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on style of coin/banknote list

Please vote

Now that the currency infobox has been implemented to 160 currencies, including some obsolete ones and even "European Currency Unit". But I have stumbled upon a formatting issue numerous times. So I would like to start a voting on the formatting of the list of "used coins/banknotes" in the infobox. There are many "factors" (dimension, attribute, whatever you call it) to decide

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result is incorporated above. It may not satisfy everyone, but some conclusion has to be drawn.

  • new line to seprate subunit main unit
  • 10, 20, 50 cents, 1, 2 units
  • 10, 20, 50 cents
    1, 2 units
  • break into 2 line only if all doesn't fit in one line (tricky, must use at least Firefox and IE to make sure)
  • No new line. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • New line not needed cept on really long ones I guess. Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • New line – Zntrip 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • New line Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • New line only if it does not increase the total number of lines --Chochopk 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "and" or not to "and"
  • 10, 20, 50 pence
  • 10, 20, and 50 pence
  • No and. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No and Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No and – Zntrip 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No and Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No and --Chochopk 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • use symbols or not
  • always use when possible
  • never use
  • use only if the symbol is 1 character long
  • Always use symbols. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbols so easy. Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Three character symbols (like Czechoslovak koruna) may produce longer result. --Chochopk 11:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Never use (use name at end of list) – Zntrip 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Always use when possible - clarify the meaning both in the introduction of the article and in the infobox and then use it all over the article. That's simple. (And can avoid some other problems, like the affair in the case of Slovak koruna) Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Always use when possible (name or symbol) – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Always use symbols when possible --Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • When the symbol is after the numerals, append the symbol after each denomination or the last
  • 50 h, 1, 2, 5, 10 Sk
  • 50 h, 1 Sk, 2 Sk, 5 Sk, 10 Sk
  • after the last (and what about using semicolon to separate different units, like 5, 10, 20, 50 h; 1, 2, 5, 10 Kcš?) Timur lenk 16:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This question is for Timur. What about USD? --Chochopk 17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it can either stay as it is now, or:
Coins: 1, 5, 10, 25, 50 ¢; 1 dollar
Banknotes: 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 dollars
Large denomination is still legal tender: I'd rather include 500, 1000, 5000 and 10 000 dollars bills in the rarely used section then the 50 and 100 dollars. By the way, what is rare? If I go to change some dollars to a bank, I am sure that they could give me a 100 dollars bill, but I don't really think they would have a 2 dollars bill. I don't think a high denomination bill should be considered rarely used, if it is still issued and available.Timur lenk 22:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I can get $2 bills at any bank in the US *very* easily. Finding anything over $100 is damn near impossible since everything over that was recalled beginning in 1969.--chris.lawson 22:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to tell: change foreign money to dollars in a foreign country :-) I am sure it is easy to get $2 bills in the US since they are still issued. Timur lenk 22:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I didn't formulate the question well. My apology. My question was, in the case of dollar, the symbol is in front of the numbers, then it looks weird to write "1, 5, ... , $100".

Regarding what's "rare" and what's "frequent". I will write a detail explanation in the infobox instruction. But that is a rather different topic. If you want to discuss, please open a new thread. --Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • After the last – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • After the last only if the symbol is after the numerals --Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • large numbers
  • 4 digit numbers
  • 1,000
  • 1 000
  • 1000
  • 1 000. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 1,000 Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 1000 - I wouldn't separate four digits. 3 zeros are not that confusing for the eyes. Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 1000 I concur with Timur lenk. --Chochopk 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 1000 – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I see "&-n-b-s-p-;" (without the dashes) when I edit, in between the one and the zeros for "1 000". Is tha a space or something? If so what's the difference? – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  means "non-breaking space". It tells the browser to always put 1 and 000 on the same line. Otherwise you might get
blah blah blah, 1 000

000 dinara
--Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 5 digit numbers
  • 50,000
  • 50 000
  • 50000
  • 50 thousand
  • 50K
  • 5×104
  • 50 000. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 50,000 Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 50 000 imagine 10,000, 20,000, 50,000, 100,000, 200,000 xyz. Isn't it better this way: 10 000, 20 000, 50 000, 100 000, 200 000 xyz. Another thing should be also considered: English Wikipedia is read by many non-native English speakers. In many European countries (like mine) comma is used as decimal separator (instead of dot), while using non-breaking space is universal (or at least everywhere understood). SI also suggests using space. K and M might be practical, but I don't think they fit into an encyclopedia. Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 50 000 – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 50 000 --Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 6 digit numbers
  • 500,000
  • 500 000
  • 500 thousand
  • 500K
  • 5×105
  • 500 000. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 500,000 Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 500 000 (see above) Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 500 000 – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 500 000 --Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 7 or more digit numbers
  • 5,000,000
  • 5 000 000
  • 5 million
  • 5M
  • 5×106

--Chochopk 08:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • 5 000 000. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 5,000,000 Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 5 000 000, but additional 5×106 exponential form is also useful for numbers higher than ten million (like in the case of the Hungarian pengő inflation series banknote box). The largest number written on a banknote is 500 000 000 000 (dinara) Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Writing out all digit would cause trouble for Krajina dinar and Republika Srpska dinar. --Chochopk 10:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think anything >= 10 million should be in scientific notation (in the infobox only, of course). --Chochopk 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 5 000 000 – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 5 000 000 But use scientific notation for 107 or larger. --Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation Link Repair

I am working on disambiguation link repair, and have found the this info box points to the Printer disambiguation page. Would someone be willing to redirect that link to point to printer? I am not familiar with the rules and mechanics of inbox editing, so I figured this was the best approach. Thanks. Srice13 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adjustment

I propose making an adjustment to the infobox to show the estimated value against other major currencies say limiting it at the top 5 currencies. Whenever I hear a person signed an agreement for 500,000 Francs or Pounds, I only really want to know what that equals in dollars when I click on the word. I'm sure other editors feel the same way about foreign currencies. Quadzilla99 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? Quadzilla99 22:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thats what Template:Exchange Rate is for. Joe I 02:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic and Hebrew

Is there any way to get Arabic and Hebrew in the "local name" section centred? – Zntrip 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. this appears to be a problem specific to IE. Firefox has no problem centering it. Please remind me if I forget. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monetary Policy Used

There is a catagory called "Fixed exchange rate" which includes most of the worlds currencies that have a fixed exchange rate as their monetary policy. If there any way to add to the Currency infobox an optional field that outlines the montetary policy used to manage the currency. That way it should be easy to collate currencies according to the monetary policy approach used. Unfortunately my skill/confidence with Infoboxes is too low to attempt this myself. Terjepetersen 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I can work something out. What is the specification you envision? If an infobox specifies "pegged_with", then put it under Category:Fixed exchange rate automatically? There are two kinds of peg, hard peg and floating within a narrow band. Currently, the infobox style guide says only put hard peg, while Category:Fixed exchange rate allows both. While we're at it, maybe we can try to make this more consistent. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What languages to include in the infobox?

The following debate was moved here from Talk:Euro.

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#Peseta. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I quote Chochopk's comment in edit summary:
Chochopk (Talk | contribs | block) (58,964 bytes) (revert Kaihsu's edit. Template talk:Infobox Currency says "Try to list the translation in all the languages of the "using_countries" attribute below." and Bulgaria is not a user, Montenegro is.)
This is unwieldy for this currency. I suggest "Ευρώ (Greek); Евро (Bulgarian) [1]" Note the link to linguistic issues concerning the euro, which explains things in extensive detail. – Kaihsu 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1) Spell the name of the currency the right way. The word "euro" is not capitalized in Greek.
2) No country that has Bulgarian as an official language (Bulgaria) uses the euro and therefore it should not be added to the infobox.
3) Regardless of the legal status of the use of the currency in a certain country, the official languages of any country using the currency are added. That means that Serbian is added because the euro is used in Montenegro and Kosovo. – Zntrip 05:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I see what you are trying to do now. See [1] by the way. – Kaihsu 09:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the users of the euro currency is the European Union as an organisation, and all EU institutions use the euro as their official currency, regardless of which EU country they happen to be located in. The infobox would then need to show the name of the currency in all of the official languages of the EU (of which there are 27, including Bulgarian). (212.247.11.153 21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC))
If that is the case, then the EU must be added as a user too. There must be a symmetry between user and currency_name_in_local. I don't have a problem with that. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody is discussing it, I assume the everybody implicitly consents the new rule. It's at Template talk:Infobox Currency. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Latin Serbian is important. Serbia isn't actually even a member of the Eurozone. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 07:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you been following the discussion? Why do people keep talking about Serbia? The Serbian language doesn't necessarily imply Serbia. The whole reason is Montenegro. English doesn't always implies England either. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, yeah, that was clumsy, but Montenegro (just as Kosovo) isn't part of the Eurozone, either. Anyway, it appears that the majority here are for the current section, so I won't edit it again for the meantime. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Serbian shouldn't be listed, its not in any sense an official name of the currency. In any case why not just list Euro, Evro, ευρώ, Евро without specifying languages and provide a link to the linguistic issues page? Seems neutral enough, I'm going to do that now. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort of making it ambiguous intentionally, in order to compromise. While I don't oppose Hexagon1's edit strongly, I feel that I have to reiterate myself for my rationale. Supporters of Bulgarian (i.e. opposers of Serbian) keep saying that Serbian is not an official language, Bulgarian is. Then I have to ask, the official language of what? I never heard that a currency can have official languages, otherwise, this attribute would be prominently listed on the infobox, like in the country infobox. Political entities have official languages, such as a country, an autonomous region, or even a city. Currently the standing rule has this logic

      actual user                                    official language
euro -------------> Germany, Greece, Montenegro, ... -----------------> Greek, Serbian, ...

If you're saying that Bulgarian should be included, and not Serbian, then I reversely construct your logic as

      ???      official language
euro -----> EU -----------------> Greek, Bulgarian, ...

Now what is the 3 question marks? The proper way of describing the first arrow would be "the political and monetary union, of which this currency is intended for, and at the same time, a few exceptional member of this union can opt out from this currency, while non-member of this union may unilaterally adopt this currency". This logic is 100% correct, I'm not disputing about this. I'm saying that this logic cannot be extended to other currencies used by multiple countries/political entities, such as the United States dollar or the Gulf rupee.

Can you find a "political and monetary union, of which the USD is intended for, and at the same time, a few exceptional member of this union can opt out from the USD, while non-member of this union may unilaterally adopt the USD"?

We need a consistent and standardized rule of generating data in the infobox. After all, consistency and standard is what the infobox is all about. Make a rule that makes sense, and then generate data from it. Avoid making rules that fit some data that were made in a random, ad-hoc fashion.

Supporters of Bulgarian have been arguing in the scope of the euro, or the EU, and have been giving counter arguments to my arguments in the scope of the euro. My argument is not about the euro, it's bigger, it's about the entire scope of all currencies.

Now, can we talk about the rule, instead of one instance? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The rule has been standardized per the infobox page, however its inappropriate for the article as evidenced by the controversy. I'm satisfied with my proposed solution as it eliminates this problem, Evro and Евро cover Serbian along with Slovenian and Bulgarian. In the long term, however, the rule agreed on at the infobox page needs to change, examples such as USD are ridiculous at the moment. I once carried a 10-pound note in Switzerland. How does this differ from so called "actual usage"? Why aren't the four languages of Switzerland included at GBP? +Hexagon1 (t) 08:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Switzerland is not listed as an user of GBP in the infobox in GBP. If you think this rule in inappropriate as a whole, you're welcome to propose another one. I never say it has to be the way it is now. I've been open about this and spammed the same invitation to currency talk pages where the same concern may arise. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know it isn't, that's my point, how does so-called "actual usage" differ from my usage. Who defines "actual usage"? And why? I don't have a replacement rule, I am just pointing out some of the problems with the current one, mainly the arbitrary definition of "actual usage". +Hexagon1 (t) 02:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, what about this?
      issuing authority       working language
euro -------------------> ECB -----------------> Greek, Bulgarian, ...
, and plus all the languages that appear on the physical currency (apply to Lebanese lira and Tunisian dinar). This will probably also solve the USD. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I hate explaining this, but I’ll say it again.
1) The infobox contains the “local languages” of the currency.
2) A “local language” is defined as the one printed on the physical currency or spoken as an official language in a country where the currency is legal tender.
There is no controversy concerning this and the most neural approach is to follow set guidelines. The argument of WP:IAR is baseless because you have made the article more ambiguous by deviating from the format of other currency articles. Also you made no consideration to follow foreign grammatical rules in the infobox. You would have known to do this if you read Template talk:Infobox Currency and the needless capitalization just reinforces my suspicion that you didn’t even bother reading the talk page. Next time to some research and listen to others before making edits. – Zntrip 05:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Zntrip, are you defending the existing rule, or the concept of a consistent rule (well I guess the 1st one implies the 2nd)? What do you think about the new proposal I just made? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your charming attacks, you make me blush. I followed linguistic conventions, Greek wasn't capitalised. I don't see how IAR isn't relevant, read the article. I made it more ambiguous rather then compressing a very long page to a sentence. And please remain civil, accusations solve nothing. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I, too, find the current rule quite ambiguous. How extensive should the usage be for the currency to be listed there? In many countries it is legally allowed to use currency of any country for paying for things, so if both the buyer and the seller agree, there would be no problem in using a foreign currency. As a service to the customers, shops in the border area between Sweden and Norway accept both Swedish and Norwegian currency (on both sides of the border). So should SEK be listed as being used in Norway, and should NOK be listed as being used in Sweden? Similarly, the cities of Haparanda (Sweden) and Torneå (Finland) are really just more or less the same city, with lots of people crossing the border all the time and some people working on one side of the border but living on the other side. All shops in both cities will accept the currency of both countries, so should SEK be listed as a currency of Finland, and EUR as a currency of Sweden? Or should we list only currencies used in at least 50% of the transactions? In that case, where would CUC be listed as being used? On the island of Cuba, CUP is probably more commonly used than CUC. (Stefan2 09:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

The original intent is to list national or pseudo national entities where this currency is a legal tender. If it is legal that two parties agree to trade on a certain currency, that's not enough to have the status of legal tender. That is the user field. Perhaps this is not spelled out in the style guide. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Chochopk, I totally support the existing rule, which I do think is consistent. Is there anything that I said that isn't outlined already. – Zntrip 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The infobox was fine they way it was with Slovenian and Serbian. If you read the infobox talk page you would understand this... so what is the problem? – Zntrip 21:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That everyone disagrees. And why the double post? I quite like Chochopk's proposal, it would at least prevent the ridiculous situation at USD and others like it. Stefan2's argument is very convincing, I agree with those points. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The proposition that Chochopk made would encompass languages of countries that don’t use the currency, which is more ridiculous than what we have already. The euro page would have “euro” written in Maltese, Latvian, Bulgarian, Turkish, etc. I still think we should stick to the language on the currency and the official languages of the countries that use the currency. – Zntrip 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, on second thought, my proposed rule would include Maltese, Latvian, etc. The existing rule does seem better. This question is to Hexagon1, Stefan2, and Wakuran. What would you like to see in the infoboxes of the euro, the USD, the Indian rupee, and South African rand, and the Soviet ruble. And if you don't mind, also add the explanation of your choice. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
How about this, the languages included should be all the official languages of the issuing body and the languages on the notes or coins, excluding any of the languages that is only used in nations that don't have the currency in ANY sort of official circulation (eg. the Sweden/Finland agreements above would qualify both nations for such circulation), unless there is no such 'using' country, in which case all the official languages and languages appearing on notes are listed. Just a proposal, analyse to shreds. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty understanding your proposal. Let me try to reconstruct
  • Languages of the issuing body
  • Plus, additional ones that appear on the physical currency
  • Remove ???
  • Unless ???
It would be easier if you use the word "plus" and "remove" and use positive condition (like if blah). Could you avoid using condition with the word "unless"? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe like this:

  • Show the name in all languages printed on the actual notes and/or coins. For EUR, only "euro" and "ευρω" are printed. For USD, that would mean "dollar" (or "US dollar"). For SUR, that would mean a long list of names.
  • Show all official names as defined by the issuing agency (e.g. the ECB). For EUR, that would mean only "euro" and "ευρω" (with no accent above the "omega"). For USD, that would mean "dollar" (or "US dollar"). For SUR, that would probably mean the same long list of names. (Stefan2 12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC))
But what about the adjective? The Canadian dollar would be "dollar" in English and in French. Are you suggesting removing the national adjective? That's a lot of changes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean to remove the adjective. I was only talking about what languages to mention. (Stefan2 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
  • The Omega in “ευρώ” always has an accent. In Greek, accents are omitted when a word is written in all capital letters. I just wanted to clear that up. The way it currently appears in the infobox is correct.
I seem to understand that the EU and/or ECB decided that the only correct Greek spelling is without an accent. Then no one follows that decision (with the main argument being that it doesn't follow standard Greek spelling rules), but that's a different thing. (Stefan2 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
  • So Hexagon1, what you are purposing would only eliminate the official languages of countries that have adopted a currency unilaterally? You do understand that if this were implemented the euro infobox would have seven spellings? “Euro” would be written in Greek, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Slovenian (which is the same as Latin Serbian), Maltese, and Bulgarian (which is the same as Cyrillic Serbian). Why have “euro” written in languages of countries that don’t even use the currency? – Zntrip 22:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I was misunderstood, so I doodled a flow chart to run a language through, and hopefully simplify my proposal: [2]. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hexagon1, I find this diagram overly complex. It seems that it is made in this way to fit some desired result. What is so bad about the (existing) "actual user" rule? Is it because you don't want to see Serbian? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely nothing against Serbian (dobro došli!), I'm myself Slavic, but I find it out of place in an article on the Euro. The present rule irritates me, "actual user" is vague, as shown above by Stefan2. I made my chart as an attempt to simplify my proposal, but I guess I'll have to put it mathematically: (official languages of issuing body + languages on the note) - languages only used in nations that don't use the currency in ANY (no de jure/de facto use) way = languages included. The exception would be where none of the countries that use the official languages or those appearing on the note are using the currency, in which case they'd be all listed (regardless of the third "operation" in my equation above). +Hexagon1 (t) 00:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The current rule says actual users are the ones listed in the using_countries attribute. None of us are discussing what should be listed in using_countries. Since there is no ambiguity about the using_countries, there should be no ambiguity to list the languages of the using_countries. So the existing rule is not vague.

I'm afraid that the border-town example Stefan2 gave does not fit in the current framework. None of these individual towns are listed in the using_countries attribute. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing it, I specifically stated my problem with 'actual user' and my irritation with the present rule. I wasn't talking about just the framework of the Euro but of all currencies. I've moved the debate to here, so the discussion gets wider consensus. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for moving the discussion here. I still don't know why you find the current rule irritating. Previously, you said because it's vague. And I tried to explain why I don't find it vague. Do you agree? disagree? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Actual use could refer to any number of things, official circulation, official (but not actual) use, de facto use, de facto use in one specific region, official (but not actual) use in one region, or official (but not actual) and de-facto cross-border monetary arrangements as mentioned above. OR maybe coins of one currency and notes of another are used. There is a plethora of "actual usages". I am just pointing out the flaws of actual usage, the main issue in question is the link between 'actual usage' and the names of the currency in different languages. I'm proposing a solution independent of actual usage. Sorry if I've been vague before. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You have given good points here. This is the ambiguity of the using_countries. There could be a number of interpretations, as you pointed out. Enumeration of using_countries currently is a qualitative process. There are no codified rules for this. But there is one for currency_name_in_local. It's based off the result of using_countries.
At this point, there seems to be little dispute about the using_countries, for euro, for the USD, or for other "problematic" currencies. So if the result of using_countries is something most editors agree on, then there should be no ambiguity deriving currency_name_in_local off from using_countries. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you refer to the rule of deriving currency_name_in_local from using_countries, and take it as a given, but that's exactly what I am opposing. I haven't come up with a new rule for using_countries, but one for currency_name_in_local, which aims to reduce its dependence on the ambiguous using_countries and prevent the situation at Euro. We should consider ourselves lucky no nationalists from the countries in question have come and started a huge edit war over this, due to the ambiguousness of the rule from which currency_name_in_local is derived. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What you propose is to bypass using_countries. But it comes with a price of over complex rule. Why not make using_countries unambiguous first, then currency_name_in_local would automatically become unambiguous. What about the thing Wakuran proposed below?

I haven't got the time to read the discussion carefully, but I think the infobox somehow should mention whether the currency is used "officially" or "unofficially" by a country, concerning the issuing agency. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I still think it is less ambiguous the way it is. – Zntrip 19:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If there were such attribute (unofficially_using_countries), how would you partition the users of the USD, the euro, and some others. Right now, the USD lists
  • the United States, the British Indian Ocean Territory,[1] the British Virgin Islands, Cambodia, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Panama, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the insular areas of the United States
Euro:
  • Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Kosovo, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Vatican City
South African rand:
  • Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland
Singapore and Brunei dollar
  • Both legal in both countries (I suppose)
Belgian and Lux franc
  • Both legal in both countries
I'm just worried that this separation may cause more controversy and revert war. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wakuran's proposal, and I don't think there's any abiguity, official would be where the issuing body has intended the currency to be issued, so Euro would be official in EU, Monaco, Vatican and San Marino, but unofficial Kosovo, Andorra and Montenegro, as an example. (distinction between bilateral and unilateral adoption) +Hexagon1 (t) 06:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you work out the other currencies and give some explanation why and why your partition won't be controversy? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
And you don't do this yourself because.. ? As I said, bilaterally adopted is official, unilaterally is unofficial. This is an extremely rudimentary and indisputable definition. And I don't see any controversy, you're the one that has an issue with this, please give an example of some possible controversy. If anyone is unhappy with this rule I will gladly hear their proposal. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with separating users. And I agree with that bilateral agreement is a rudimentary and indisputable definition. Why do I not do this exercise myself? I am not trying to make trouble with the new proposal. I am a template designer with strong interest in currency. But how am I supposed to know if the British Virgin Islands has a bilateral agreement with the U.S. or not. It requires research. Lack of sources that say it's bilateral doesn't automatically imply it's unilateral. We need a source that says it's unilateral in order to say it's unilateral. I asked the question in my previous correspondence because I don't know the answer. I need your help. It was not a rhetorical question to prove that such separation would controversial. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My appologies then, however would not requiring sources be beneficial? It would ensure accuracy to say the least, and probably prevent disputes rather then prevent them. I'm not sure of the other currencies, as I lack a strong background in currencies. I can't check it now as I am on severely limited net, I'll try to check it later. +Hexagon1 (t) 22:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Pardon my late reply. Busy in real life. I can make the separation of official and unofficial user. Here is the specification:
  • using_countries still required. If unofficially_using_countries is present, then using_countries is shown as "official user(s)", otherwise, simply "user(s)".
  • unofficially_using_countries (new), optional. If exists, it is shown as "unofficial user(s)".
  • The rule of currency_name_in_local will be unchanged because using_countries would become official users only when unofficially_using_countries is present.
It will be up to the domain expert (not me) to decide who's official and who's not. I will remain busy in the coming days. Remind me if I don't do so for too long. And regarding Stefan2's question below, I believe that the answer is we should include Faroese and Greenlandic because DKK is officially used there. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What languages should be listed for DKK? Currently only Danish is there, but shouldn't Faroese and Greenlandic be added too? (Stefan2 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Yes they should. I'll add them (if I ever find the name in Faroese or Greenlandic). – Zntrip 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Should maybe Icelandic be added too? I think DKK was used in Iceland until it gained independence from Denmark in the 1940s. (Stefan2 00:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

I would say no. It's only for countries that currently use it. Are you trying to make a point or something, because this is a little off topic? – Zntrip 01:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
New parameter unofficial_users added. Documentation slightly updated. Under the current rule, only Greek is listed. Can we consider this issue resolved? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed we can. Finally this 4269-word long dispute brought to closure! Thanks Chochopk. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait, what about Slovenian? – Zntrip 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. This is the power of open encyclopedia. Editors make mistakes and others catch them. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the EU be added as a user of the euro? All EU institutions use the euro, regardless of which country they happen to be located in. This also means that Bulgarian etc. need to be added to the list of languages, I suppose. (Stefan2 10:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

That's up to the domain expert to decide.. I am not an expert of European topics. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Sizes

The function {{!}} does not work. I tried making the size of the coin in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Caribbean_dollar smaller because it is now shown beyond the limits of its resolution and my attempt did not work. With {{!}}100px it should appear nicely, but instead the default size 252px cannot be changed. Q43 01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed (overdue response). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures to use

In an article what is the preferred picture that you put in the infobox? Is it better to put:

  1. Lowest value coin, lowest value note
  2. Highest value coin, highest value note (like in AUS$ article)
  3. Highest value note and all coins

Although it appears that it is common practice now to use highest note+ coin (b) I feel that this needs to be standardised, so wherever images are available, every currency has the same pictures (eg Euro has 500 note and 2 coin, US$ has 100 note and quarter, or dollar, even though rare) etc. Tarcus 23:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(I refactored your message a bit for readability). I personally prefer the highest for both, and I've been doing this if I am the first person to add an image to the infobox. My reason is that the highest value coin/note usually shows the most, the most about this country/region, culture, people, history, etc. There are cases where the design is standardized across denominations. But it is very unlikely that the highest denomination shows less than a lower denomination. Then again, there's no hard rule about this. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inflation

I think the inflation source should be put in a <ref> footnote in the inflation_rate field, rather than be displayed in the source field. Thus, inflation_source_date would contain only the date, which is more useful to the casual reader. Superm401 - Talk 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally want inflation_source_date to be source and date. But your suggestion is rather bold. Do you think you can share some of the burden of converting to this format? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issuing vs Using countries

Should not this template distinguish between issuing (ie those who are allowed to mint the coin) and (other) using countries. Especially in the case of the United States dollar this may clarify the relations. It would also illuminate the Euro article. Arnoutf (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You can use the optional unofficial_users parameter. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Name

Is there a code to write the name of the currency (the title) without it just calling it the page's title? — Dragoslav (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)