Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

[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. Nightstallion ✉ 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. Nightstallion ✉ 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. —Nightstallion (?) 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? —Nightstallion (?) 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. —Nightstallion (?) 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. —Nightstallion (?) 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:

  1. draft a proposal (I'll write it with you guys helping with the content).
  2. get approval from the project (revise as needed to gain wide support -- if we can't, stop here).
  3. 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 20th 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. —Nightstallion (?) 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. —Nightstallion (?) 09:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
How is the ISO 4217 inconsistent and factually wrong? – Axman (☏) 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
For example, all units are capitalized. Have you heard "5 Kilograms of food"? --Chochopk 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Dove1950. I believe the only reasons to leave the "ruble" exception in place are the alphabet mismatch (the inability to transcribe every grapheme in the Cyrillic alphabet to a grapheme in the Latin one) and the various spellings of ruble (Russia, Belarus, etc). None of these reasons fit the gulden. BTW, while guilder gets 960,000 results on Google, gulden gets almost 4 million. Thus, even the Google argument is wrong. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Your Google search was faulty, as it also included things, places and people called Gulden — which have nothing to do with the currency itself. A more refined Google search (dated: 2008-02-03) would result in 34,000 English pages for gulden currency -guilder -wikipedia and 433,000 English pages for guilder currency -gulden -wikipedia. This more refined search indicates that guilder is far more common and correct in English then gulden. Therefore the Google argument is not wrong, just the way in which people use it. – Axman (☏) 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that guilder is the proper term to be used on the English Wikipedia. Gulden is how we, the Dutch, call our currency. Guilder is the proper English translation. I believe that using google hits to determine which term to use is not correct. It is obvious that you wil find more hits on the internet of the English term, simply because of the fact that there are more pages in English. Magalhães (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2008 (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. —Nightstallion (?) 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)

[edit] Names of 14th century silver coins?

See talk Talk:Kraków grosh and Talk:Prague grosh for surveys.

Are there guidelines how to determine historic names? -- Matthead discuß!     O       22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature problems for currency articles

The section below was copied from Talk:Tanzanian shilling#Comments on proposed move:

Could AjaxSmack perhaps explain what's "arbitrary" about Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style?
Dove1950 10:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes s/he could. Those style guidelines suspend WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME for the names of currencies but not for the adjectives modifying them. On top that, some currencies are then are arbitrarily exempted from those rules (e.g., Finnish mark, Swiss franc, New Taiwan dollar, and numerous pounds, rubles, and rupees). I'm not sure how the Tanzanian shilling slipped through the cracks but would be happy if it was allowed to remain among the flouters. —  AjaxSmack  03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Finnish markka is no longer a flouter. Swiss franc is an awkward one due to four possibilities. Which pounds and rupees are you refering to? All that I'm aware of use these names on the currency, either exclusively or in conjunction with other names, raising similar problems to Swiss franc. The only obvious flouter is the New Taiwan dollar, which is partially dealt with in Chinese yuan. However, just because one or two exceptions exist is no reason to preserve other exceptions. It's worth remembering that currency names appear on the currency in the local form (exclusively in the case of the shilingi) and this is why those names should have the prominence we assign them through Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style.
Dove1950 09:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably regret pointing these out but some of the other currency articles using non-native names in countries where the first official language is (or was) not English and/or where the English name does not appear on the coins and notes (not including rubles) are Bosnia and Herzegovina convertible mark, Brunei dollar, Chinese customs gold unit, Cypriot pound, Djiboutian franc, Egyptian pound, Anglo-Saxon pound, Hawaiian dollar, Irish pound, Libyan pound, Macanese pataca, Malagasy franc, Maltese pound, Mongolian dollar, Mongolian tugrug, Moroccan franc, Mauritanian ouguiya, Philippine peso, Somali shilling, Somaliland shilling, Sudanese pound, Syrian pound, Old Taiwan dollar, and most rupees (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, &c.), various piastres among others.
Some of the supposed "native" names are a little silly. As pointed out on the style talk page previously, the New Taiwan dollar is not called a "yuan" in Chinese and the word appears nowhere on the coins or notes (it's called 新台幣 measured in 圓) yet in nearly every English situation in the country, official and unofficial, the term New Taiwan dollar is used. While this logic may have kept the article at its English name it has not saved others such as the Israeli pound, Lebanese pound, Chinese cash (Chinese wen?? Come on.) despite clear prevalence of English usage in some cases, even at the official level.
The arbitrariness (is that a word?) extends quite wide: Polish rubel but Russian ruble, Lebanese lira but Egyptian pound, Ottoman Turkish piastre but Turkish kuruş. And "tugrug" is neither a transliteration of Mongolian (tögrög) nor the English (tugrik). —  AjaxSmack  04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


End copied section. -  AjaxSmack  17:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In the ongoing discussion of whether or not to move Tanzanian shilling to shilingi, a list of articles has been provided which User:AjaxSmack considers aritrary usage of non-local names. Rather than continue the discussion there, I put my response to each of the articles mentioned here.

  • Bosnia and Herzegovina convertible mark - not local name, doesn't appear on currency, needs fixing
  • Brunei dollar - this name appears on the back of notes
  • Chinese customs gold unit - name appears on notes
  • Cypriot pound - this name appears on notes
  • Djiboutian franc - this name appears on notes and is direct transliteration of Arabic name
  • Egyptian pound - this name appears on notes but is not transliteration of Arabic name
  • Anglo-Saxon pound - pound is the modern English term, if you know the Anglo-Saxon term, please change it
  • Hawaiian dollar - this name appears on the currency along with dala
  • Irish pound - this name appears on the notes (I've tried changing this article but met opposition)
  • Libyan pound - this name appears on notes but is not transliteration of Arabic name
  • Macanese pataca - this name appears on the currency
  • Malagasy franc - this name appears on the currency
  • Maltese pound - this name appeared on the currency before 1972, hence the existence of pound and lira articles
  • Mongolian dollar - this name appears on the currency
  • Mongolian tugrug - perhaps not the best transliteration?
  • Moroccan franc - this name appears on the currency and is direct transliteration of Arabic name
  • Mauritanian ouguiya - name appears on the currency and is direct transliteration of Arabic name
  • Philippine peso - this should be changed but the change has been blocked
  • Somali shilling - this name appears on some of the currency but it probably ought to be moved to shilin
  • Somaliland shilling - this name appears on the currency
  • Sudanese pound - this name appears on notes but is not transliteration of Arabic name
  • Syrian pound - this name appears on notes but is not transliteration of Arabic name
  • Old Taiwan dollar - a horrible name that has to be changed
  • Rupees - I know of no cases where this name does not appear on the banknotes and in many cases it also appears on the coins.
  • Piastre - where appropriate, qirsh is already in use
  • Chinese wen - this is the proper name, a transliteration of the Chinese 文, although perhaps we ought to add the accent as used in the article text
  • Polish rubel - this is the Polish name, look at the currency
  • Ottoman Turkish piastre - a pointless article that ought to just be a redirect (thanks for pointing this one out)

The Tanzanian shilling article is not being picked out for special treatment but is part of an ongoing effort to use the most appropriate names for the currency articles. Please remember that Wikiipedia is still in an embryonic form and must be given time to get everything right.
Dove1950 10:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The guidlines do not say "use what is printed on the notes or coins." They say "Use the local name for the denomination even if there is an English translation." Therefore many of the above defenses for current titles are not based on the rules as I read them. Names such as "ouguiya" (ʾūqīyah) and "franc" (frank) could only vaguely be considered transliterations (poor ones via French) and don't match any systems used here. You're absolutely right that "rubel" is the Polish name for the currency but why is the native form used for the Polish but not the Russian, Belarussian, &c. versions? The word "wen" or "wén" does not appear on coins either, it's 文 and the article should be moved to Chinese 文. -  AjaxSmack  17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What better definition of the local name is there but that which appears on the currency? As for ouguiya, if it's such a lousy transliteration, why do they use it on the currency? As you well know, the native form of ruble in Russian is in cyrillic. Do you advocate the use of cyrillic in article titles? The same goes for wén. However, I do agree that when the English name used on the currency is not a transileration of the local name we have a potential problem that needs resolving.
Dove1950 19:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
"What better definition of the local name is there but that which appears on the currency?" Well which name? The currency of Egypt, a country where Arabic is the sole official language and is spoken in some form by 98+% of the population, is probably called جنيه locally. Nonetheless, "POUND" appears on the note as well and Egyptian pound is the title of the Wikipedia article (as it should be). This question is compounded in the case of the Indian rupee or Soviet ruble. (And the Soviet ruble note does not show "ruble" at all.)
"Do you advocate the use of cyrillic in article titles?" Absolutely not. Use English as is currently the case. My point is that using English for the various rubles and rupees as well as some of the pounds and shillings works well now. Why not extend it to the other currencies that are overwhelmingly known in English by English names.
"The same goes for wén." And, no Chinese characters should no be used as titles. But neither should terms (like "wén") created by Wikipedia in violation of the official policy of no original research and the guidelines of use English and use common names be used as titles when a overwhelmingly used, uncontroversial name, Chinese cash, exists for the currency. (There's even a book about it with "Chinese Cash" in the title.)
The solution to these issues is to clarify what a "local name" is or, better yet, stop flouting WP:OR, WP:UE, and WP:UCN and use common English names for currencies. This would not entail article titles Czech crown, Indonesian rupee, or even Polish zloty (without the ł). Numismatic catalogs and literature, many linked from the Wikipedia articles, could be given weight in determining the best terms (with a stipulation of adding diacritics when used) and likely almost all article titles would be the same as they are now. It would just avoid having to try and find out the Anglo-Saxon name for the pound, using awkward titles like Bosnia and Herzegovina konvertibilna marka, ignoring common names like Lebanese pound, using pop transliterations like tugrug, or creating new terms like Chinese wén. -  AjaxSmack  15:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Some of the inconsistencies you point out are clearly there. However, I balk at the suggestion that the word wén has been created for Wikipedia. It can be found in any Chinese-English dictionary as the Pinyin for 文. I also dislike the idea that we dumb down Wikipedia by ignoring the correct, local names of currencies, especially in cases where there is only one term used. I agree that some clarification of what is the "local name" is needed for cases like ruble and rupee and that the use of pound in Egypt raises other problems. As I said before, this is a work in progress and there will no doubt be a lot more done in this area before it can be said to be even approaching accurate across the board. All I would ask is that those who can help do.
Dove1950 16:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"I balk at the suggestion that the word wén has been created for Wikipedia." Balk you may but pinyin is a transliteration system for Standard Mandarin, not an English definition. (And not all Chinese would use this pronunciation as you imply: ~60 million Cantonese would use man1, ~30 million Minnan speakers might say bûn, &c.) Although sources using wen (without the tone mark) for cash in English can occasionally be found, using "Chinese wén" as an article title borders on original research consdering the overwhelming use of "Chinese cash" in numismatic literature and catalogs (cf. Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó and Wúchǎn Jiējí Wénhuà Dà Gémìng are legitimate as transliterations but the articles belong at People's Republic of China and Cultural Revolution). WP:UE guidelines succinctly state: "If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form....If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources." There is really no compelling reason why currency articles shouldn't follow these guidelines as well. -  AjaxSmack  19:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Dumbing down Wikipedia? How can using the common name of the currency in English be dumbing down especially when the users of the currency use that English name when conversing in English? The local name in the local script is there in the first line of the articles for those who care to learn more. The style guideline does not explain why it conflicts with Use English and Use common names guidelines of Wikipedia. --seav (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Japanese yen may have been a better example to discuss. It does appear on the back of the banknotes, but it's really called the "en" (円) in Japan, and there isn't even a "ye" sound in modern Japanese, so it's not a transliteration. Dekimasuよ! 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afghani

In the case of the Afghani currency, this style results in a ridiculus name, "Afghan afghani". There currently is a big debate over the adjective form of Afghanistan so its now named "Afghanistani afghani" or "Afghanistan afghani". There should be an exception made when the denomination actually contains the name of the country and is the only country using the currency. The previous name was many times clearer (Afghani (currency)) since the term Afghani can mean three things (currency, citizen of Afghanistan, Pashtun). -MarsRover 17:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine peso

The correct name of the Philippine currency as stated in Republic Act No. 7653, Chapter II, Article I, Section 48 (signed into law in 1993) is "peso." So the proper name of the currency in English (which is an official language, by the way) is "peso" not "piso", which is the proper form in Filipino, the other official language of the Philippines. So any changing of "peso" to "piso" in the wrong context in Philippine peso is ridiculous especially since "peso" does not conflict with the Numismatics style of using the local name for the currency. "Peso" is the local name, in English, as enshrined by law. Furthermore, what's seen on the banknotes/coins does not dictate what are the only proper names/forms that can be used. --seav (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

May I request that, in light of the arguments already presented by seav, the Philippine Peso be listed A.S.A.P. as an exception to the first rule under "Articles about a specific country's currency"? What, may I ask, is the procedure to request that this modification to the styleguide be made? Thanks. Alternativity (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, "Philippine peso" is not even an exception, since it is a local name. However, I disagree with the style guideline and I want to (re)open the discussion concerning that currency naming convention guideline. Using the local name for the currency should be done on a case-to-case basis and not imposed on all articles with the few odd exceptions. --seav (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I refute the suggestion that the name used on the currency should be considered inappropriate for use in Wikipedia simply because it is not English and some people speak English in the Philippines. We do not, at present, have a guideline to deal with cases where several languages have equal status within a country. As Filipino is the "national" language of the Philippines (with English also an "official" language), there seems no reason to worry about such a guideline in this case as the answer is clear but perhaps we ought to make a decision none-the-less to assist in similar cases. The presence of exceptions, the various rubbles and the Swiss franc, is because no decision has yet been taken. They should not be used as an excuse for other exceptions.
Dove1950 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not suggest that "piso" is inappropriate. All I'm saying is that "peso" is more appropriate for the English Wikipedia. Heck, if English were not an official language of the Philippines and Republic Act No. 7653 did not exist, then the argument for "piso" would be quite stronger. As for the difference between official and national language, there's no law or jurisprudence that says that national languages have primacy over official languages. IANAL, but the "national language" is in practice a more titular designation akin to having a national flower, national tree, or national hero. In practice, virtually all legislation and official written communications in the Philippine government is done in English, and only translated to Filipino/Tagalog when bothered to do so. So there: English and Filipino are equal in stature and since this is the English Wikipedia, we should prefer the English term.
The Swiss franc issue is altogether different since English is not an official/national language of Switzerland and would need a different kind of argumentation. (I don't care what the Swiss franc is named since I don't use that currency, but I suggest to ask the Swiss central bank how they prefer their currency to be named in the English Wikipedia. [The French, Italian, German, and Latin Wikipedias would have no such problem.]) --seav (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when is this guideline ranked higher than WP:NC which states: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize..."? If anyone can prove to me that a) this guideline supersedes WP:NC (Image:Blue check.png supersedes Image:Green check.png) or b) "piso" would be the most recognizable name for English speakers, then this debate is done. --Howard the Duck 16:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Guidelines change proposal

An issue that has cropped up in several sections above concerns using non-English titles for currencies. As it stands, article title guidelines for numismatic-related articles contradict Wikipedia naming conventions including using English for article titles and using the most common name for article titles, specifically the extent that they call for non-English names to be used where official English ones exist. To rectify this, I propose the following modifications to the guidelines:

Current guidelines:

    • Use the common English name for the country in the title, if possible, though in the article itself, you can use the domestic name if it is in common use in English. A redirect is appropriate in this situation.
    • Use the local name for the denomination even if there is an English translation (e.g., Czech koruna, not Czech crown). If the currency name contains non-ASCII characters, use them (e.g., Polish złoty). Be sure to include a redirect from the ASCII version (e.g., Polish zloty)
      • Use local grammar for plural form (i.e., 1000 yen, not 1000 yens)
      • Known exceptions include
        • All different rubles, even though it is spelled рубль, рубель, and рубл in Russian, Belarusian, and Tajik. And no transliteration standards will result in "ruble".
        • Swiss franc (spelled Frank in German, spoken by 64% of Swiss)

Proposed modification (changes in blue):

    • Use the local name for the denomination even if there is an English translation (e.g., Czech koruna, not Czech crown). If the currency name contains non-ASCII characters, use them (e.g., Polish złoty). Be sure to include a redirect from the ASCII version (e.g., Polish zloty)
      • Use local grammar for plural form (i.e., 1000 yen, not 1000 yens)
      • Known exceptions include currencies that have English names that are used overwhelmingly in English even in the location where the currency used. Relevant factors in weighing whether an exception exists include English usage of the issuing authority, ISO names[2], or numismatic references. Such exceptions include:

Most articles that would be affected by these changes such as the examples above are already compatible with them. Other examples include Japanese yen, Malagasy franc, Chinese customs gold unit, Somali shilling, Sudanese pound, Hawaiian dollar, and Prague groschen.

However, a few articles are not compatible with them or WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME and, in the case of Egypt and China, the titles are original research. Below are links to proposals to move them:

Please discuss the guidelines change proposal below.

[edit] Discussion of guidelines change proposal

The proposed changes could have been tailored for those who want to ignore the real world and imagine that the only language in existence is English. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should not go around using foreign names for thing which have perfectly good native names. Where do we draw the line? Do we use crown for all the krone, krona, korun, etc.? Or dollar for all the thaler, dalar, etc. Local names are easy to define in the vast majority of cases and are used on the currencies themselves, therefore making them far more practical names for identifying the currencies when looking for them in an encyclopaedia.
Dove1950 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the proposal before commenting. It is not an all or nothing standard and there is no proposal to "translate" koruna to crown or thaler to dollar. This only appplies to currencies that widely use English names even in the location where the currency used. Most articles already conform to this standard as seen in the examples above. — AjaxSmack 00:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The proposed guidelines seem reasonable and are more in line with Use English and Use Common Names guidelines of Wikipedia. I suggest a minor improvement: change "Such exceptions include" to "Such exceptions include, but are not limited to" so that it's clear that the guideline is not an all-or-nothing and that problematic cases will be dealt on an individual basis. --seav (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a new rule to be added at the top: "If the central bank/appropriate authority website (not some random tourism website) has an English version, use the word on these web pages.". This is a definitive method and leaves little room for argument. And may I suggest moving the general rule (local name) to the last bullet point. The best way to describe a compound logical rule is to put a general rule last (i.e. apply A (most specific and exceptional), then B, then C...) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shorter, sweeter proposal

I think the guideline should be simplified and made even more harmonious with WP:UE.

*Use the term for the currency that is most commonly used by considered English language sources. Such sources include, in no particular order, encyclopedias, media of record, academic literature, numunistic catalogues, Central Bank publications, banknotes themselves and so forth.

That's it. That's the guideline. No lists of exceptions. Short, clear, concise.

Note that in some cases this will result in an title identical with the local name, in some cases it will be similar to the local name, and in some cases it will be completely unconnected to the local name.

As for the question of "how to decide" between thaler and dollar, krone and crown etc etc: this approach provides an clear evidential method. We simply ask what does the BBC English service, Britannica, Whitman's, the American Numismatic Association , The Danish Central Bank's English website, New York Times, etc etc call the currency? This represents the consensus of the English speaking community, and it is our job to simply report this decision. We should not go about making a priori rules for the sake of consistency (for instance, "always use the local form", or "always use the translated English form"), which end up having all sorts exceptions anyway. Erudy (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is excellent but I fear it is far too straightforward and sensible. Nonetheless, I support it over my proposed minor changes to the previous guidelines and encourage more discussion here. The only thing I would add is to stipulate usage of diacritics on Latin alphabet names that do not have a different English form (e.g., Hungarian pengő, Salvadoran colón, Polish złoty). This would require no article moves. — AjaxSmack 01:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
While I'm against this in principle, I just want to make sure that it is just the unit's name we're discussing. The overall form <national adjective> <unit in singular nominative> is not in dispute. And renminbi and pound sterling remain exception to this form. Back to the unit's name and the "shorter, sweeter proposal". I want to point out that the Standard Catalog of World Paper Money (ISBNs available at {{Numis cite SCWPM}}) uses the word "livre" for the Lebanese currency, and "yuan" for the Taiwanese currency, while "other English sources" such as the central bank uses pound and dollar. These two are the relatively more problematic cases. What about Polish rubel? or is it ruble? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What is done elsewhere for such problems is this: If standard English sources are divided, use the more common, the best attested, of the possibilities; if they are divided evenly, follow local usage as a tie-breaker. I am far more familiar with Lebanese pound and Taiwanese dollar, but this is a question of evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And, aside from tweaking the spelling of numismatic, I support the shorter proposal. Why aren't we doing this now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This shorter proposal seems very sensible. I'm also surprised by the current instruction to use local grammar, since (in the case of the Russian ruble) this would involve baffling changes like one ruble / two, three, or four rublya / five rubley / one hundred and one ruble, etc. Where the English form is identical to the local name but often omits diacritical marks, I see no problem with encouraging them to be used here. If there's a tension between an English-language name and a local name that's also used in English, I think it's also fine to go with the local name unless the English-language version is well-established and clearly predominant. --Reuben (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the proposal does seem much better than the current guideline, but I'm unsure of the "banknote" bit, because many — if not all — notes and coins use the local name on its currency, whereas English may have a different name — eg, guilder in English and gulden in Dutch (the name used on its currency). Maybe something like what Reuben said in his last two sentences above could be incorporated into the proposal too. – Axman (☏) 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with this proposal. It conforms with the principle of using common English names. The current guidelines result in names that sound unnatural and are not in common use. Redirects can be used where several names exist.
I'd also like to question the relevance of "numismatics" in defining the names of currencies. I could be wrong (the numismatics article says that it is the "scientific study of currency and its history", although the article itself seems rather narrowly focussed on the actual coins and notes involved), but it seems that a "currency" is more than just the notes and coins that are used. Notes and coins may be the "nuts and bolts" of a currency, but somehow to let this nuts and bolts aspect take precedence over the more abstract concept of a "currency" seems somewhat strange to me.
Bathrobe (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Numismatics would mean everything from coin collectors' guides to the scholarly study of, for example, the distribution of Indo-Greek coinage in the hope of deducing their political history. For obsolete currency, these may well be the major contexts in which the coins in question are discussed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
From your note, it still seems that numismatics is narrowly focussed on the physical notes and coins. But is the study of "a currency" synonymous with the study of its numismatics? Just a question.
Bathrobe (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You're reading a comment too closely: my interests are with currencies which existed only as coinage, not as paper money or transferrable credit; my use of numismatic reflects that - the article may also, although I didn't write it. This has been true for most of humanity, for most of the time since the introduction of money. But nobody suggested making numismatic sources the sole evidence, merely one kind of evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my point was: Is it correct to use the name of the "numismatic unit" directly as the "currency name". I say this because strong attempts are being made to impose the numismatics style page as a universal standard for naming currency articles in Wikipedia. Somehow it seems to me that the two, while intimately related, are conceptually distinct. The name "US dollar", for instance, is shorthand for "US currency", i.e. "dollars and cents". "Pound sterling" is shorthand for both "pounds, shillings, and pence" (pre-decimalisation) and "pounds and new pence" (post-decimalisation). The numismatic units (different denominations of coins and notes) are one thing. The name of a currency is another. That is the question I was raising.
Bathrobe (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This proposal lists encyclopaedias, media of record, academic literature, numismatic catalogues, Central Bank publications and banknotes. I'll add coins if we ever do have to consider this proposal seriously. Here's why we shouldn't. Many of these sources will disagree with each other in the tricky cases that are at the heart of this discussion. Some of the secondary sources will agree with the primary source, the physical currency. In particular, numismatic literature (including academic) will frequently fall into this category, whilst the others will present a mish-mash of possibilities. The real problem is that, when an English name has come into being for a currency, it enjoys no better status than a nickname. No one in their right mind would accept "buck" or "quid" as the names of currency articles but these are just as well defined in dictionaries (another potential source) as guilder or Lebanese pound. This is the level to which we would descend if we adopted this proposal. Added to that the undoubted encouragement it would give to those for whom everything must be Anglicized, the confusion it would cause anyone lucky enough to have an example of the currency and the endless arguments that will ensue, this proposal will swiftly cease to seem short or sweet.
Dove1950 (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This identifies the fundamental problem with the prexent guidance. It relies on a primary source; and it relies upon a primary source which is not in English. Both of these are bad ideas for a naming convention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The claim that arguments will result, any more than elsewhere in Wikipedia, would come better from an editor who does not handwave away the problems produced by following the local language when there are several. We have well-defined methods for determining what the prevalent English name is; the true local name is beyond our capabilities; often it is beyond the locals' capacity as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Dove, and nicknames are bad? Then propose a move from Bill Clinton to William Jefferson Clinton (among thousands of other articles). And you seem to think that for the majority of these currency articles, there are a "mish-mash of possibilities". I don't agree. I think that what the currencies are called in English is pretty widespread and a "de facto" standard. There will only be a small proportion of articles that will be problematic and these will mostly be on historical currencies. Moreover, what confusion will ensue? The local name is prominently mentioned in the first sentence of the articles! It's actually more confusing if you insist on using an English adjectival form of the country then append to it the local name resulting in howlers like "Brunei ringgit" that Bruneians would laugh at. --seav (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Even shorter, sweeter proposal

Use the local name, transliterated where necessary. Why the big discussion? It's obvious that the local name, as used on the currency, takes precedence over all others. No relying on secondary sources, which are often inconsistent within themselves as well as between one another. We have the physical form of the currency as our incontrovertible guide in the vast majority of cases. We only need to decide on a logical approach in multilingual cases and for transliterations. This way, we avoid promoting an Anglocentric perspective. I want to emphasize this point in particular. Wikipedia tops the search results across a vast range of given inputs. This means that if Wikipedia suddenly declares that the currency of Lebanon is called the pound, just because that's an English translation of the real name, people will actually start to think that it is. Wikipedia gets enough stick in the media for its misleading information. This would be another howler.
Dove1950 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Misleading? How is it misleading? Wikipedia just documents how currencies are called in English by reputable English sources. Anyway, the local name you cherish is always prominently mentioned in the very first sentence of the article (and even in non-Latin scripts--which is far more than most other encyclopedia do). Remember that Wikipedia is descriptive not prescriptive.
Moreover, it's not "obvious" that "the local name, as used on the currency, takes precedence over all others," otherwise, we wouldn't be having this big discussion if it's so obvious. Why should it take precedence, especially if the language used on the denominations is not English? Using the Wikipedia guidelines of Use English and Use Common Names as our guiding principle, the shorter proposal by Erudy follows the spirit of these two Wikipedia guidelines. Hence we have Germany, not Deutschland. I don't see why we can't follow the same for the names of currency articles. --seav (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
And Wikipedia is not limited to the English Wikipedia. Those who want the Russian ruble discussed not only in transliterated Russian but in Cyrillic need only click a link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Use the local name, transliterated where necessary. And what happens when there is more than one local language? Should the Hong Kong dollar be renamed to the Hong Kong mun (local name of the currency in cantonese) or, the Singapore dollar to be renamed to the Singapore dollar/元/dolar/வெள்ளி, which includes all 4 local languages of Singapore? Wouldn't that be way too confusing? The best non-political compromise would be to retain the names in English (because this is after all an English encyclopedia) - i.e. Hong Kong dollar and Singapore dollar, unless there are better reasons to use alternate names (e.g. the currency is known in the English speaking world by a different name than its directly translated English name). --Novelty (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I also don't think it's obvious that preferring the local name is always the right approach, or even an unambiguous approach in all cases. But it's almost a good enough rule, because in the vast majority of cases, the standard practice in English is already to use the local name or a direct transliteration of it. For one example, the Finnish markka is also sometimes called the Finnish mark - but not by an overwhelming margin, so we go with the Finnish-language name. No problem there, I think we all agree. There are really only a few special cases that we need to worry about. In the case you mentioned, the Bank of Lebanon is content to use "Lebanese pound" for documents in English. Who are we to tell them they've got it wrong? --Reuben (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this approach. It sounds good -- what could be more objective and easy to apply than looking at the notes themselves? But in fact it's quite simplistic and more than slightly ridiculous. It's a bit like proposing that every country should be called by the name it uses for itself. Sounds fine, until you see it in practice. The old Far Eastern Review a number of years ago adopted that policy, and every article used the local name for a while. There were articles about the "government of Zhongguo" and "Nippon's response", etc. It was quite laughable (I'm surprised that they even went through with it) and didn't last long.
So while it looks like a fair, objective, and neutral approach to the issue, it ignores the reality on the ground, which is NOT NECESSARILY to use what's printed on the banknote. Just because official and popular usage isn't as immediately tangible as the ink on a banknote doesn't mean that it should be ignored or rejected.
Bathrobe (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed in late 2005. I was reluctant to participate on the discussion naming convention because I thought it was counter-productive. I wanted to focus on article content and enforce whatever the consensus would be. Who would have foreseen this controversy. I will bring in major participants of the 2005 discussion, User:Mom2jandk, User:Searchme, and User:Nightstallion, into this. This is procedural correctness that we have to do.
As with my opinion now. I'm afraid that this is an English Wikipedia, so English translation is not inappropriate. Besides the Germany/Deutschland example, James Soong is called 宋楚瑜 in the local language. 宋 = Song or Soong, 楚瑜 = Chuyu. But he chose to be called James in English, hence the article James Soong. Some other people, such as Chen Shui-bian, chose not to have an English name. Local name doesn't always take precedence, nor is the English name false in anyway.
Dove1950 mentioned "avoid promoting an Anglocentric perspective" and "not a pseudo-Anglicized version of reality". I am a big opponent of US-centric or Anglocentric perspective. I take actions like rewording phrases like "in our country" or adding Asian examples in articles of a global concepts. But I don't think using the English web pages of central banks as a guide is Anglocentric in anyway. For example, I don't think the folks at the Denmark Nationalbank or the Banque du Liban are Anglocentric. If they wish to call their respective currencies "krone" and "pound", not "crown" and "lira", then so be it. The physical currencies may be incontrovertible, but it will lead to problems like James Soong or Zhongguo as Bathrobe pointed out. In addition, the central bank is just as incontrovertible as the physical currencies. (I still want to put more emphasis on the English web pages of the central banks/authorities over other sources.) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
"Use the local name, transliterated where necessary" might sound appealing until you end up with names like Egyptian gineih or irsh or Xīntáibì which neither English readers nor the natives who use the currencies will understand. User talk:Chochopk is correct — second guessing the English usage in countries like Egypt or Taiwan and creating original research names that no one understands is the real Anglocentrism.
Wikipedia as a whole uses "use English," "use common names," and "no original research" as guidelines for titles. There's nor reason they shouldn't be used with currencies. Let's go with the Shorter, sweeter proposal. — AjaxSmack 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A side issue: I, as a Taiwanese, do wish my fellow citizens and people in the world start calling our currency "yuan" when speaking in a language written in Latin alphabets. My blog entry for this. May I suggest giving English webpages of central banks higher priority in the proposed rule? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The central bank idea isn't bad but it should be easy to a consensus of English usage from weighing all of the suggested sources. As far as the name for New Taiwan dollar, I wish people would start using the Taiwanese derived "kho͘" (箍) when using a language written in a Latin alphabet because it would be cool to say that the word for dollar is the same as the measure word for a turd (chi̍t kho͘ sái 一箍屎). — AjaxSmack 04:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
While I sympathise with 球球PK's feelings, I find it difficult to agree with attempts on Wikipedia to overturn established usage, whatever the reason.
However, there is an aspect of the matter here that is not entirely explored at this discussion. European languages and non-European languages are fundamentally different from the point of view of English-language usage. Usage in non-European areas tends to be tainted with the discourse of colonialism and post-colonialism. Among Europeans, for instance, I suspect that issues like "Finnish mark" or "Finnish markka" aren't such a passionate point of debate. That's because there is a tradition among European countries of accepting each other's usage ("you say München, I say Munich", "you say London, I say Londres").
But in areas that have been through colonialism, the terms of the debate are somewhat different. Many English-language usages were imposed or adopted as part of the colonial experience. The use of "dollar" and not "yuan" for the Hong Kong dollar, for instance, is an outcome of a long historical process which I don't pretend to understand, but which involved Europeans coming into these places and using their own names for things without respecting or necessarily even thinking much about local names. Sometimes local names were used, but the entire framework was colonialist. For instance, many Chinese would wonder why catty should be used for what they call a jin. Tell them it's a term from colonial Malaya and they would be even less inclined to use it in English, even though the term has a long and respectable usage in China during the colonial period.
Thus, colonial-era names have gradually tended to be superseded by later changes and standardisation as new countries emerged from the ashes of colonialism. That's why it's much trickier trying to uphold traditional, good old English usages in places outside of Europe. Every so often we see a new example of previous colonies standing up and saying, "We don't have to use those old colonial names any more, we want to use our own names". This is sometimes a bit of a joke -- for example, when India decided that "Bombay" should change over to "Mumbai", and even the Indians themselves kept on using "Bombay". But it's something that can't be discounted when we're holding this kind of discussion. I personally prefer to use "Taiwanese dollar" in English, 台湾ドル in Japanese, and 台币 when speaking Chinese, "HK dollar" in English, 香港ドル in Japanese and 港币 when speaking Chinese, "renminbi" or "yuan" in English, 人民元 in Japanese, and 人民币 or 块 when speaking Chinese. I don't see the need to try and unify these different names, because each language has its own conventions and histories. But I can understand why some people might not feel the same way.
Bathrobe (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Good points. I would add that super-sensitivity to supposed "colonial" or whatever slights can be taken too far. (Taiwan was never colonised by an English-speaking country so use of "dollar" is hardly neo-colonial). In the case of the Taiwanese currency, the Wikipedia article states: "It is frequently called "NT" by expatriates living and working in Taiwan and by local people, when speaking English." [my emphasis] You could say they shouldn't use an English name like "NT" to appease foreigners but this is another form of condescension ("we know better than you what you should say"). A funny instance of this super-sensitivity can be seen at Talk:Names of European cities in different languages#London where a user thought that the Japanese name for London entered in the list (Rondon) was "making fun of the fact Japanese have difficulty pronouncing 'L's". If English speakers just stick to English and let the seemingly limitless supply Interwikis in other languages deal with their own languages, all will be much better. — AjaxSmack 04:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, this isn't a simple issue. For instance, the name for standard Chinese. In Hong Kong it's natural to talk about the standard language as "Mandarin", as opposed to "Cantonese", because that's a very natural dichotomy in their society. These are names that survive from the colonial period. So we could say that the Chinese themselves (the Hong Kong ones, anyway) use it. But in China itself names like "Mandarin" are regarded as a bit colonial or old-fashioned, and the preference is for putonghua in describing the standard language. As you know, however, even in Chinese there's no unanimity on how to call the language -- 国语, 华语, 中国话, etc. Not to mention the Japanese who call it 北京語. So there is no single "standard" situation. People use names out of habit, and other people come along and try and change those habits, out of some conviction that the old habits are "wrong" or "colonialist" or whatever. Clearly analysing existing usage is usually the first step to sorting things out.
But the problem is, what kind of stance should Wikipedia take? Frankly, I don't think Wikipedia shoul be taking upon itself the role of creating standards or deciding to change usage.
Bathrobe (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally would agree with this proposal, yes. —Nightstallion 15:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Care to expound why, considering the arguments and insights provided by other people here? --seav (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
To Nightstallion, whose proposal are you supporting and why? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One matter that hasn't been explicitly raised here is the prescription to use "country name" (<Adjectival country name> <denomination>). I'm not sure whether this should be there or not. On the one hand:

  • Country names are a convenient way of identifying a currency and are widely used
  • The standard abbreviations all incorporate country names (USD, AUD, HKD, CNY, JPY, etc.)
  • Currencies are frequently issued by political entities (empires, nation states, colonies etc.), which can be understood in a broad sense as "countries"

On the other hand:

  • Currency names shouldn't necessarily be treated just like "currency codes"
  • The tidy organisation of currencies by "country name" (like a "United Nations" of currencies) is a product of the modern world. It doesn't necessarily apply to all currencies or all eras. Isn't it rather doctrinaire to rigidly insist on this in naming currencies?
  • Currencies aren't necessarily issued by countries. The East African shilling and the euro spring to mind. East Africa was never a "country"; it was a British colony. Nor is the EU a "country", and indeed, the euro is not found at "EU euro" or "European euro". Another related (if minor) point: neither Hong Kong nor Macau (nor possibly even Taiwan, depending on your politics) are recognised as "countries".
  • Some currencies traditionally use names that differ from <Adjectival country name> <denomination>. The pound sterling is one. The renminbi is another. GBP incorporates the name "Great Britain", but that doesn't mean that the name of the currency should (see point one, "Currency names shouldn't necessarily be treated just like "currency codes"").

For these reasons, I suggest that the rigid stipulation that currencies should be written in the form <Adjectival country name> <denomination> should be loosened or abandoned. Bathrobe (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Abandoned? Definitely not. This structure was agreed to eliminate mess like "dollar (Canada)", "Canada Dollar", "Canadian dollar". Pound sterling, renminbi, and euro are the three exceptions I can think of. I can't think of anymore. If you don't like the phrase "Adjectival country name", we can change it to something like "Adjectival locale name" or "demonym" (HK and Macau solved). You will probably say "Singapore", "Brunei", and "Taiwan" are not adjectives. Right, but these are just slight tangents off from the current structure. If you wish to further discuss this, we can move this to another section. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of points raised

Let’s deal with a few of the points raised.

  • "Wikipedia is descriptive, not proscriptive." So that’s a vote in favour of this proposal, since we are describing what’s actually on the currency.
    • No, this is not about how we describe the currency; it's about what we call it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
    • No, you misunderstand me. We describe what the English world calls these currencies, and not prescribe what the English world should call these currencies. If the English world is content to use "Lebanese pound" (including the Bank of Lebanon) and "Brunei dollar" (as attested by Bruneians), who are we to dictate that we should use "Lebanese livre" and "Brunei ringgit"? --seav (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In the case of Brunei, the English world overwhelmingly calls the currency the Brunei dollar as opposed to the Brunei ringgit. As I have posted on the Brunei ringgit talk page, there are 2000 times more hits for Brunei dollar than Brunei ringgit on Google, and although Google page hits are not an exhaustive source of information, the overwhelming number suggests that the English wikipedia is bucking the trend by naming the article the "Brunei ringgit" which is unnatural, and does not reflect the English used either locally or globally or even online. --Novelty (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Surely we are describing the currency, not putting that description through a filter which changes its name.
        Dove1950 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • No, we just don't describe the currency, we also describe what is the common name the reputable and reliable English-language sources call these currencies. --seav (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid that we are putting description through a filter. Let's f(x) be this filter. f(x) is such that if x = Willem I der Nederlanden, f(x) = William I of the Netherlands; if x = William I of England, f(x) = William I of England. Sometimes x ≠ f(x), sometimes x = f(x). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ”And what happens when there is more than one local language?” We discuss which form to use for the title and make sure that other forms are clearly indicated. I’m sure we can manage that.
    • Such confidence; see my remarks above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There are more than 10 languages used in Brunei alone - see Languages of Brunei. That is a small number, yet we are already disputing what to name the currency here on the English wikipedia. I cannot imagine how complex it would be to name the currency of places such as Nigeria or Papua New Guinea which has hundreds if not thousands of local languages which would be fair to every inhabitant in those countries. The English name is used, sometimes to avoid controversy, hence the Singapore dollar, for example and not the Singapore dolar or the Singapore yuan as the dollar is unbiased towards the majority (the Chinese who use yuan) and the native Malays (the Malays who use dolar). Note that the national language of Singapore is Malay, eventhough Singapore has 4 official languages (English, Mandarin, Malay and Tamil).--Novelty (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, we'll have to make lots of decisions anyway when all the secondary sources proposed disagree with one another. Either way, decisions are going to be needed.
        Dove1950 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "… the Bank of Lebanon is content to use "Lebanese pound" for documents in English. Who are we to tell them they've got it wrong?" People who look at the currency will see that this name has never been used. I suspect that the Banque du Liban uses that name due to the unfortunate choice of Lebanese pound by ISO. This is a clear case where we ought to avoid making a mistake just because someone else has.
    • Never been used? See these Google Scholar hits. That's 263 uses, mostly in peer-reviewed journals. It is our policy to prefer such sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Why presume the intentions of the Bank of Lebanon? They use "Lebanese pound" and that ought to be good for us especially since it's also used by numerous other reliable English sources, unlike the case of "Myanmar" vs. "Burma". --seav (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Show me the word pound on a single Lebanese coin or banknote. You'll find it's an impossibility. That's what "never been used" means.
        Dove1950 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Bill Clinton's birth certificate doesn't have the word "Bill" on it yet his biography is at Bill Clinton. So blindly using what's written on the currencies themselves and ignoring what reliable and reputable English-language sources call these currencies is a very absurd position to take. --seav (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Dove1950 likes to use this argument and I've seen this on the discussion of the last Dutch currency. I will still use the example of James Soong, or other Chinese people who adopted Western names which has nothing to do with their Chinese names. I bet that "James" was not on the driver's license, or the national ID. But why is the article named that way? Let me give Lisbon and local road sign as another example. You fill in the rest. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "... it ignores the reality on the ground…" couldn’t be more wrong because it is based on the reality on the ground in the place that matters, where the currency is used.
    • Lie. See Talk:Brunei ringgit, which includes both testimony and other evidence on the situation in Brunei. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
    • LIE. The brunei currency is called the "ringgit Brunei" in malay, the "Brunei dollar" in English, the "Bun-lai lui" in Hokkien, the "Mun-noi chin" in Cantonese, the "Wenbi" in Mandarin among other languages that I don't speak. Somedays, at work, I use all 5 terms when discussing money alone to various people in the office and that's the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is always more complex than wikipedia can even hope to imagine, and is probably beyond the scope of wikipedia to define. --Novelty (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't take kindly to being accused of lying. There was an on-going discussion at Brunei ringgit which is yet to be completed because of this discussion. Maybe you aren't capable of defining the complete situation but please don't assume that others aren't.
        Dove1950 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "I don't think the folks at the Denmark Nationalbank or the Banque du Liban are Anglocentric" Perhaps not actively so, but passive Anglocentricism is just as bad as it can lead to more misleading editing in the future.
    • Oh, we are committing "passive Anglocentrism" now? What's that? I do concede that I am indeed an Anglophone; but that's the purpose of the English Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • No, this proposal is active Anglicization, pure and simple.
        Dove1950 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • First of all, Anglicization is not intrinsically wrong. This is the English Wikipedia after all, and Anglicization is the norm. Second, this is not active Anglicization at all. We don't go around inventing new English translations of currencies; we just describe what English-speaking peoples call these currencies. So it's actually a passive thing. --seav (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia as a whole uses "use English," "use common names," and "no original research" as guidelines for titles." The problem is that the first two of these notions are in clear conflict. The common names of currencies are frequently not English. A reasonable question to raise is whether transliteration can be original research. In the case of Chinese, there exists Pinyin (for the P.R.C.) which absolves us of such an accusation. Cases such as Arabic are far less clear but we need an answer.
    • Utter nonsense. Pinyin does not absolve us; especially when discussing the currency of the Taipei Government. More importantly, we are not doing any transliteration; we are following the transliteration of others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you even read WP:UE and WP:UCN? WP:UE prevails first and if there are many English names, then use the most common name. In essence, these two guidelines say "use the most common English name." Hence Germany not Federal Republic of Germany nor Deutschland nor Bundesrepublik Deutschland. --seav (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • How is common name defined? In which language? In my understanding, the English Wikipedia has a preference for the common names used in English (of any national variant). Also, pinyin only works for Mandarin. What about Arabic? Tamil? Nepali? Navaho? --Novelty (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The fist line of Wikipedia:Naming conventions is "Naming conventions are a list of guidelines on how to create and name pages. These are conventions, not rules carved in stone." WP:UE therefore cannot "prevail first".
        Dove1950 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I wasn't talking about Naming conventions, I was talking about Use English and Use Common Name. And you're conveniently ignoring the Naming Convention guideline's nutshell: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize..." and this is actually a nod to Use English and Use Common Name guidelines. So in essence, Naming Conventions should follow WP:UE and WP:UCN. So the Numismatics naming convention of following what's written on the currencies themselves contradicts WP:UE, WP:UCN, and WP:NC. It's high time we change it to Proposal 1 below. --seav (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "If English speakers just stick to English and let the seemingly limitless supply Interwikis in other languages deal with their own languages, all will be much better." This suggests to me that most people will use Interwikis to find out more information. I’m not sure that’s true, since many users won’t speak the other languages those pages are written in. Wikipedia needs to be encyclopaedic in each of its versions.
  • "Frankly, I don't think Wikipedia should be taking upon itself the role of creating standards or deciding to change usage." Wikipedia needs to have consistency. That’s what this discussion is about, not "changing usage". If, as a result of giving people all the information, usage does change, that’s part of the potential beauty of the whole Wikipedia project.
    Dove1950 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No, we are committed to writing in English; if we can do so consistently, so much the better. But often we cannot be consistent; English is large and contains multitudes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And how is saying, use the most common name that the English world calls these currencies inconsistent? Even the current problematic naming convention that is based on using local names is inconsistent since there are plenty of exceptions. --seav (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I see nothing in all of this but "We should use what's on the currency because we should use what's written on the currency." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is encyclopedic in that the official and other names are often listed in the first line, and the infobox, where applicable. Do I go search for Sun yat-sen or Soon Zhongsan? Is the city in the United Arab Emirates, Dubai or al-Dubayy? The common English names for the two examples are used in Wikipedia instead of the transliterated chinese or arabic names, and the first lines of each respective article states what the official names are, in the native script and with a transliteration. I don't see why the currencies and coins have to be any different. --Novelty (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • "How is saying, use the most common name that the English world calls these currencies inconsistent?" By not reflecting what's written on the object being discussed, the currency itself.
        Dove1950 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • There are many types of consistent naming schemes. I agree that using what's written on the currency itself is consistent but don't think that using what reputable and reliable English-language sources call these currencies is inconsistent. Now, in choosing between these two schemes we go by what most English-language readers would recognize and that's the latter scheme. --seav (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is anybody else persuaded to support the present broken convention by Dove1950's affirmations of true belief? It is clear that he will never understand us; should we adopt the sweeter proposal now, or wait for the move requests to close? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Nightstallion and a few others agree with Dove1950's position. --seav (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm totally confused about which proposals we are talking about right now. I'm going to start a new section below to summarise all the proposals to make the discussion clearer. --Novelty (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see that this discussion isn't getting personal. The reason that the current convention has been broken is because small cabals of editors have been forcing its breakage without reference to this style. Such actions should not be used as an excuse for abandoning it for a pre-defined mish-mash
Dove1950 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines change proposal survey

A very interesting discussion continues above. There appears to be consensus for a change in guidelines to conform with general Wikipedia guidelines (WP:UE, WP:UCN) but let's get clarification just in case. These proposals would supersede the guideline here beginning "Use the local name for the denomination..." If you care, please register support for one or the other of the proposals below but, since Wikipedia is not a democracy, please continue discussion above or below. All previous participants in this discussion will be notified. — AjaxSmack 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this AjaxSmack. Hopefully, it'll make things less confusing. I propose that we use the definations for Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 when discussing about these changes so that we are not confused. --Novelty (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 1

Use the term for the currency that is most commonly used by English language sources. Such sources include encyclopedias, media of record, academic literature, and numismatic catalogues, and English usage in issuing central bank or government publications and on currency themselves.

  • Support. — AjaxSmack 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I would prefer "English usage by the issuing central bank or government" to be added to the list above and the consideration part be removed if possible. --Novelty (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • How's that ↑  ? — AjaxSmack 03:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Changed to Support after the revision. --Novelty (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Domain-specific naming conventions should clarify WP:UE and WP:UCN instead of contradicting it. The clarifying guidelines for a domain should help editors in determining what is English and what is common in that particular domain. Proposal 1 shows such clarification by pointing out which sources to consider. --seav (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Although "use the name on the banknote" sounds fair, simple, objective, and impartial, it leads to even more horrendous complications than following current usage as set down in this proposal. This is definitely the most commonsense proposal. Bathrobe (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't think I'll spend time to read the entire conversation that took place, but WP guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME should always take precedence over some artificial standard that a WikiProject decided to set, especially if they're standards that only exist in WP and not in the real world. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Give higher priority to the English web page/publication of the central bank/government. And add coins besides banknotes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I guess I'll be bold and change banknotes to currency, which will include not just the banknotes and coins, but also all other forms of physical currency in circulation. --Novelty (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This guideline is descriptive, while all the arguments for the alternative proposal rest on normative arguments about what the currencies should be called in English. We should call things what they're ordinarily called in English, in accordance with broader naming policies and the descriptive goal of the encyclopedia. --Reuben (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't now see why the usage of Central Banks, which may sometimes be under political pressure, should have higher priority than other standard sources. The purpose of WP:Use English is not to find what name a subject ought to have, but what name it does have; we seek comprehensibility, not precision. (I can be convinced on this; but I have not seen reasons.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that Central Banks should not have higher priority to avoid taking a political stance. Equal priority, definately. --Novelty (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I fully agree they should have equal priority. Why the long last phrase? English usage on currencies themselves is fairly rare; Brunei may be one of the few examples, together with the predominantly English-speaking countries themselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not so sure Brunei is one of the few examples - Besides Brunei, (in Asia) there's Singapore, the UAE, India and Korea, which are non-English speaking (mostly) and which has English on their banknotes. I'm going to guess that most Commonwealth countries would have English on their banknotes (with the possible exception of Malaysia, where only Malay (in both the Jawi and Latin scripts is used on the currency due to the racial "politics" of that country - no printed English form exist on the currency). What I'm surprised with is that Korean currency has the WON clearly printed on the reverse of the banknotes - Korea was never part of or under or colonised by any English-speaking country.
            • It was occupied by the United States from 1945 to (?) 1948.
            • Is it worth making this "on the currency themselves, when it uses English"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
              • "and English usage in issuing central bank or government publications and on currency themselves." It's already there, it just needs to be phrased better. --Novelty (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - we use English wherever possible. Whaztever the most common name is in English sources, we use. There is no such currency as (for example), the "Brunei ringgit". It's either the "Brunei dollar", or "ringgit Brunei". The peso is used in the Phillipines, but they call it the "piso". But "Phillipine piso" would be wrong - use either "Phillipine peso" or "Piso ng Pilipinas". As this is still the English Wikipedia, much as many would like to change that, we use the most common English language term for the currency. So, Deutsche Mark, French Franc, Italian Lira, etc. Dutch gulden really needs to be moved to Dutch guilder (Nederlandse gulden is correct, Dutch guilder is correct, Dutch gulden is an incorrect hodgepodge). I'd personally like to see the use of diacritics in article titles eliminated as they cause massive problems for the visually impaired, those using screen readers, and those with a low level of literacy, but that's a different issue. Neıl ☎ 09:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This proposal is much better then what we currently have. – Axman (☏) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support; this is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 2

Use the local name for the currency, transliterated where necessary.

  • Support. I know I'm the minority faction here, but I still believe correctness comes first. —Nightstallion 10:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • But going by what the English-speaking peoples call these currencies in English is not incorrect either. "Germany" is no more incorrect than "Deutschland" nor is "Ferdinand Magellan" no more incorrect than "Fernão de Magalhães", just like "Philippine peso" is no more incorrect than "Piso ng Pilipinas". If you go by correctness, then you should agree that we shouldn't use "Philippine piso" since it's not correct English nor correct Filipino. The same argument goes for various other currency articles. --seav (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Question for Nightstallion - which version do you consider correct, the Deutsche Mark or the Germany Mark for the German currency before the euro? Proposal 2, which you are currently supporting, would require renaming the wikipedia article for the former German currency before the euro to the Germany Mark. Proposal 1 would allow the article to remain as the Deutche Mark. --Novelty (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not Nightstallion, but I want some form that puts it at German mark. English, which is commonly used for this. No foreign capitalization rules (mark, not Mark, parallel to our naming of Irish pound and Brunei dollar with lowercase currency names). Standard adjective form, not your noun form masquerading as an adjective (German, not Germany) in your redlink (German Mark is also a redirect, unlike your redlink Germany Mark), and including the "s" gets you to the current article name Deutsche Mark, with the foreign capitalization rules as well as foreign spelling in the current article's name, rather than your redlink Deutche Mark). Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the common English name of this currency was the Deutsche Mark, usually pronounced "Doichmark". There is no need to transfer it to German mark.
Bathrobe (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Just to be clear. Dove1950 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing or recent discussions on currency article talk pages

There are many ongoing or recent discussions on currency article talk pages that may be impacted by this proposed guideline change. They are listed here for reference. Feel free to add any that are missing:

  • A quick note - the Brunei dollar - Brunei ringgit article is back at Brunei dollar as per the discussion there. Neıl ☎ 10:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


If proposal 1 is successful, then the following currencies should also be moved:

– Axman (☏) 11:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We also need to re-examine everything at #Nomenclature problems for currency articles, Template:Guilder, Template:Franc (frank in German??), and Template:Pound (currency). Unfortunate for us. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the Aruban Central Bank calls it's currency the florin on its English website [3].
Dove1950 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 3

Since no concensus has yet been reached, may I present a compromise proposal that may allow the two camps to come together. Use the local name for the currency, transliterated where necessary. When an English name is used locally, this takes precendence over other, more commonly used names in other languages. Looking at the list above, this would, for example, allow Brunei dollar but would keep Dutch gulden. Any takers?
Dove1950 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. This needs some more further discussion, however. Going to your specific Dutch example, if you read Magalhães' comment on #Guilder_vs_gulden above, being Dutch, he feels that guilder is the correct term to use for the English Wikipedia. But he is only one person and certainly his opinion alone doesn't count for anything. We need to seek more authoritative sources or at least indicative sources. For example, this Google search for "guilder" on English pages in Dutch websites (.nl) seems to point out prevalent use of "guilder". But this is just one specific example. I can't think of any incontrovertible example where the English-speaking world calls a non-English-speaking country's currency differently and that country ignores the outsider's English term. --seav (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of closure, I would support this compromise solution, but I'm wondering how would it keep the Dutch gulden instead of renaming it to the Netherland Guilder? The Dutch refer to their currency in English as the guilder as well. --Novelty (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
For the specific case of the gulden, English is not a language widely spoken in the Netherlands (and yes, I do know that most Dutch people speak good English, but not to one another). Consequently, gulden is the only locally used form. The article presently makes it clear that guilder was a frequently used name for the currency in English and Dutch guilder redirects. In this way, we maintain accuracy without sacrificing clarity or usability. I might also add that there are numerous other gulden currencies for which there is no identifiable history of guilder being used. My fear is that not only would switching the Dutch article make that less accurate but it would open the floodgates for other users to change Bavarian Gulden, etc. without any justification but in the search of "consistency", thus making lots of extra work for everyone. As an addendum, perhaps we should add a line in the infoboxes for common English names, just for such cases?
Dove1950 (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal 3 states "When an English name is used locally", and as far as I know, in the Hague in South Holland, where there is a large minority of English speakers thanks to the headquarters of Royal Dutch Shell, English is used locally. I think the Netherlands also publishes English-language newspapers and announcements in Schipol airport are also made in English. Just because the majority of the country speaks dutch doesn't mean English (or German or Indonesian or French or Vietnamese) isn't used locally. --Novelty (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Based on this explanation, English names would only be used for currencies in English-speaking countries. If this is the case, Proposal 3 is the same as the current guideline. If not, it is the same as Proposal 1. As you can see from the discussion above, a consensus has been reached so...
It's not at all clear to me how this proposal would be applied in any specific case. What's the criterion for a "local name," and how does it different from "used locally?" Are either of these criteria meant to be tied to what's written on the banknotes and coins themselves, or to usage in an official language, or something else? (I mention these specific possibilities since they are tests that Dove1950 has referred to in the past, so it may be what he or she has in mind). Could you explain a bit more how this rule distinguishes the Dutch gulden from the Brunei dollar? It's hard to evaluate this proposal in its current form. --Reuben (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines change

I will change the guidelines based on the discussion and consensus above for Proposal 1 and general guidelines (WP:UE/WP:UCN) since several reverts of requested moves of some of the currencies listed above have been based on the old guidelines. However, please continue to discuss issues related to this topic. — AjaxSmack 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur, but have tweaked to say standard English sources. We list suggested sources precisely because they are better than (say) raw google searches. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I see no concensus as yet. Consequently, any moves are pre-emptive.
Dove1950 (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
And on this basis, Dove1950 has reverted four moves, one by cut and paste, to his private opinion. This is a violation of policy; Wikipedia:Consensus [sic] is not a liberum veto. The matter has been reported here. He would be well-advised to reverse himself and apologize. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Dove1950 is on a last warning - any further reverting Requested Moves and I'll block him. Neıl ☎ 10:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, to whatever extent there is any lack of any special consensus here, that means only that the normal rules of Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Requested moves apply. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
With no concensus, there is no justificcation for the moves which have been carried out or the changes which have been made to this style. I shall continue to preserve the accuracy of the currency articles in Wikipedia and I encourage those involved in this discussion to reach a concensus. We have three proposals. If no concensus can be reached on any of these three, perhaps someone can propose a fourth?
Dove1950 (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked Dove1950 for his continual tendentious editing on this issue. Enough warnings were given; further blocks will be longer. Black Kite 22:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear--as I see it, there is overwhelming support for proposal 1. Dove1950, I simply don't see how you can maintain that there is no consensus. Unless perhaps your definition of consensus in unanimity, in which case it's plainly at variance with wikipedia's definition.Erudy (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am personally not happy with the block. Dove1950 may be stubborn but I feel that there could be another path other than the rather drastic imposition of an editing block. --seav (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Dove1950 is a very productive and conscientious editor. If he were to leave Wikipedia it would be a considerable loss.
I believe he is wrong on this particular issue, which is not one of "expertise" but of "belief". (No one is insisting on deleting local language information, merely asking that the currencies should appear under more familiar names.) Given that Dove1950 has rather strong feelings about the issue, it may be difficult to prevail on him to stop his current behaviour. Are there alternatives to a block?
Bathrobe (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Has the blocking admin specifically suggested to him that he would be unblocked if he agreed not to make any more currency article moves in the near future? (Perhaps specifying a particular length of time like 2 weeks). It's very unfortunate for him to get blocked over this. --Reuben (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think he has been given a 48-hour block as listed on his talk page. Hopefully, he should be able to get back to this discussion in a few hours time, and a solution could be found that satisfies him. I have no idea what his final objections were, I think it was regarding the Dutch guilder and the Egyptian pound as his edit history shows. --Novelty (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have to say you guys have gone up in my estimation. Thank you for your support. I'm afraid Neil and his friendly administrator are very trigger happy and needed bringing down a peg or two. Your comments have, I think, achieved that and I'm grateful. Yes, I have specific objections to the imposition of "guilder", along with "Lebanese pound" and "Egyptian piastre". There are two clear camps on this issue, one of which is larger than the other. That doesn't constitute a consensus, which is where everyone agrees to a common line. That is the basis on which I continued to oppose these changes, both specific and to these guidelines. It is impossible to write an accurate article on a foreign subject when a guideline stops you from using the proper terminology. Look at the Dutch guilder "article". Reference to the actual usage of "cent" and "cents" was deleted in order to comply with "use English". Such vandalism has to be combated and I'm glad to see that my being slapped on the wrists has brought this matter to something of a head. I am planning to launch an attempt to change the "use English" guideline so that it specifically does not apply to objects and concepts of an entirely non-English nature. This isn't a matter of belief, rather a matter of being allowed to write accurate articles.
Dove1950 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you may be reading things into some of the comments above. I hoped that you could be unblocked because the block removed you from an ongoing discussion; but you had clearly earned it by repeated page moves against consensus. The block was unfortunate, not incorrect. --Reuben (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As the admin who has been "brought down a peg or two" (a quote which frankly shows User:Dove1950's attitude quite well), I probably need to point out the facts here. Dove1950 moved articles against a consensus at WP:RM, the moves were undone, and he was warned not to do it again. He then promptly did it again. Frankly, I could've blocked him for a short time at that point, but, assuming good faith, I gave him a final warning. I also move protected the pages - and so Dove1950 promptly went and changed the text back to the moved versions, with the extra disruption that the lead paragraph no longer agreed with the article names. This is fairly text-book disruption after multiple warnings, and I don't see that it can be defended. It is fine to argue your point when you are in the minority, but what you don't do is actually then go ahead and disrupt Wikipedia to make your point, and Dove1950 crossed that line.
  • Somewhat irrelevantly to the disruption, I think Dove1950 is actually wrong anyway. An article name of Dutch gulden seems a contradictory mix of languages - surely it is either Dutch guilder or Nederlandse gulden? This is why we generally stick to WP:UE and I can't see any major exceptions being made any time soon. Black Kite 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the above comments. I had hoped that, unfortunate as blocking may be, Dove1950 might be "brought down a peg or two" and come back with a more constructive attitude. Instead, he seems to have come back with more entrenched attitudes than ever.
Bathrobe (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Why would one question the English language use of the word guilder in reference to the pre-euro currency of the Netherlands? The Dutch refer to their currency as the guilder in English. The non-Dutch speaking peoples refer to the currency as the guilder in English. Even the Central Bank of the Netherlands uses that term on its English webpage - see Rules for exchanging guilder notes, for example. --Novelty (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
A quick search of the internet shows that the Central Bank of Egypt calls its currency the pound in English - see The Design of the Egyptian Five-Pound Note. Also, a similar quick search shows the Central bank of Lebanon calls its currency the pound in English - see The Historical Development of the Lebanese Pound. Are the sites of the Dutch, Egyptian and Lebanese Central banks all in error? --Novelty (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It is unfortunate to see Dove1950 blocked. We may disagree on a certain thing, but he has done tremendous contribution to currency articles. I don't want this unrecorded. Back to the issue at hand, I am in agreement with Novelty. So where does this leave us? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Where it leaves us is with a lack of consensus (still). Let's be clear. The articles we are discussing are about the currencies. Unfortunately, the new guideline ignores the primary evidence, the currencies themselves, in determining what nomenclature should be used. In doing so, it introduces false statements, contradictions and removes content. False statements include "The guilder was the currency of the Netherlands". A true statement would be "The guilder was what the Dutch currency, the gulden, was often called in English". Contradictions include a picture of a 10 gulden banknote (with the text "10 GULDEN" clearly visible), under which is the caption "10 guilder banknote". Removal of content includes the replacement of the correct usage of the words cent and cents in favour of the completely irrelevant English usage. My account was blocked for fixing these mistakes. That is entirely inappropriate. Perhaps Black Kite didn't then know that this discussion was ongoing and that no consensus had been reached. If so, an apology will suffice.
Dove1950 (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It leaves us with a single user repeating the same arguments ad nauseam. A handful of editors opposed use of English here, but you did not persuade them to do so; nor did you persuade any of the larger number who disagree. You do not appear to be drawing any agreement at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Imposition_of_this_convention_on_wholly_non-English_objects_and_concepts. There comes a time when a civil user will pack it in for a while and wait to see if a new consensus develops. In the mean while, 10 GULDEN is in Roman lettering, but it is not English, any more than "1 Dollar" is Dutch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It leaves us with a mess. If you bother to look at the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English), it does not look like your characterization. Sadly, there has yet to be any significant attempt to get beyond the insistence that a convention (itself clearly meant to be a guide and not a rule) is followed, ad absurdum. An honest user will not allow the hard work of many to be messed up by a few. Why should we employ Anglicized terminology? Does anyone really have a reason? We can't do it in every article, since it doesn't exist for most, so why apply it in a few? Why have captions that contradict what's clearly written on the object in the picture? Why make out that the Anglicized term is the real name? Why claim that the real name isn't already used in English?
Dove1950 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You know you're right. A large number of editors, here and there, know otherwise. We all go through this; if you are indeed right, your best course is to wait until this adulterine generation passes, to be replaced by another, which can see The Truth.</irony> (On Wikipedia, this should take about three months.) This is not the Most Important Thing; treating it like it is may get you banned, or at least shunned, as an uncivil bore.
To answer your questions, again, but for the last time.
  • We use Anglicized terminology, because we are writing English, and we use it to the extent English does.
  • Yes, we have a reason: we are here to communicate, not to use terms which are by hypothesis foreign to our readers.
  • Our policy is to use English names for all our articles, which may or may not be Anglicizations; this is merely an application.
  • We have captions translate the name of the currency for the same reason we have captions that translate archaeological inscriptions; because our readers can be expected to read English, not Dutch or Greek.
  • Why make out that the Anglicized term is the real name? This is a metaphysical assumption about real names. I don't know that we have ever claimed that our article titles are "real names"; and we should not. Even those who share that metaphysic may wish to communicate in English; and not everyone does.
  • No one has claimed that the local name is never used in English; our test is whether it is less commonly used - and it often (not always) is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Dove1950, what mess? Again, saying "The currency of the Netherlands is the guilder" is not wrong and is not inaccurate. That's what many reliable and reputable English-language sources state. And the Dutch themselves do not protest this. Now as an encyclopedia, we also seek to teach and to inform, thus we extend the currency sentence to something like "The currency of the Netherlands is the guilder, which in the Dutch language is called the gulden". A perfectly straightforward statement that is quite correct and is also informative. That statement also perfectly captures the descriptive nature of Wikipedia in how the Dutch currency is currently referred to. Saying "The currency of the Netherlands is the gulden" is being prescriptive. I can't see how you can't accept that. --seav (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no mess. The real mess is the single-minded insistence that the name printed on the note should be the name of the currency in English. If you want to make edits to the currency called the gulden, go to Dutch-language Wikipedia. You can edit to your heart's content. If your Dutch is not up to it, I can only suggest you are being Anglocentric.
In the meantime, this is the English-language Wikipedia. English has popular practices and conventions for referring to foreign currencies, countries, places, artistic movements, etc. The currency name in English is not always the name printed on the note. There is nothing wrong with that. Other languages have their own conventions -- for example, the Japanese word for 'dollar' is ドル doru, and the Chinese don't even bother to use the English word 'dollar'. But according to Dove1950, English is not allowed to follow its own conventions. No, English has to follow Dove1950's fond and very literal-minded idea that "what's printed there is what we should follow" (assuming English speakers can even read what's printed in Arabic or Thai or Chinese). While Dove1950 thinks he is being non-Anglocentric, in fact this is a nothing more than "token" internationalism. Given that he is editing English Wikipedia, he is just as Anglocentric as everyone else.
Meanwhile, a mess is being created through inconsistency in the application of his principle on currency names because on the one hand he is being a stickler for the original language (currency name), while on the other he is using the English name for the country. The Hong Kong dollar under his interpretation should be "Hong Kong yuan". That mixes English ("Hong Kong") and Chinese ("yuan"). It's a term that doesn't exist anywhere in nature, because it's either "Gangyuan" (Chinese) or "Hong Kong dollar" (English) -- "Hong Kong yuan" is a bastard term that no one uses. You could make a similar argument for just about any currency. For instance, the "Japanese yen" (the normal English term) is "Nihon'en" in Japanese. Under Dove1950's proposal we would get "Japanese en", which nobody uses. I can't see why we should accept a proposal that yields such laughable results. Dove1950's claim that there is "no consensus" amounts to a one-man veto based on quite dubious arguments.
Bathrobe (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This question is for Dove1950. You insisted on "primary source", the physical currency itself. Does this principle apply to articles of people and other objects? I guess there's a plaque somewhere under the Eiffel Tower, saying what it is. I guess it says "Tour Eiffel". Maybe the plague has an English translation next to it. Do we decide the article's name based on the presence of the English translation? If you mouse over the inter-wikis, you'll see all kinds of translation. What do you have to say about William I of the Netherlands? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In short, definitely Willem I of the Netherlands, not so sure about Tour Eiffel since the key part of the name is Eiffel, which remains unchanged.
Dove1950 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Could you tell us how to pronounce it while you're at it. The English pronunciation of "Eiffel" is something like 'eyeful'. The French is 'ayfell'. (Japanese pronounces it as 'efferu'). How do you propose to pronounce all these names you're trying to force on us? Or does your "internationalism" stop at the spelling. To be quite honest, I suspect Dove1950 doesn't know how to pronounce half the names he waves around as "standard". (Nor do I.)
Bathrobe (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to force names on Wikipedia. I'm trying to ensure that the correct names are used. Your insults may make you feel better but they show you up as someone not fit to edit Wikipedia. Either clean up your act or let us get on with things without you.
Dove1950 (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure why you feel insulted. I personally don't know how the Arabic name of the Egyptian pound is pronounced or even the Dutch gulden, for that matter.
At any rate I apologise for any perceived insulting tone in my remarks. The comments were a direct response to your attitude on "Anglocentrism". I'm sorry, but your use of this term opens you up to precisely the kind of criticism I was making (if rather rudely worded).
You say that you are trying to "ensure that the correct names are used". It is only in your opinion that these are the "correct names". You are in fact running a one-man campaign to force your favoured names on Wikipedia and English-speakers in general. You have failed to produce any decent arguments for your stance, other than to keep insisting ad nauseum that the name found on the note or coin itself is the only correct one (with the qualification that it should be converted into English-friendly Roman letters for your benefit). Against all the evidence, you continue to decry any other usages or conventions as "Anglocentric". Interestingly, there is a protest on your Talk Page about using the word 'gineih' as the name of the article on the Egyptian pound. The basis of the protest is that "'gineih' is just a way to pronounce the word in slang Arabic". This suggests that your attempts to use the "local name" don't seem grounded in a great deal of knowledge about or sensitivity to local custom.
In fact, you yourself are selectively Anglocentric in your approach. If you were a total purist in enforcing this rule, you wouldn't even allow romanisation. The "Japanese yen" would become 日本円, not Japanese en. The Hong Kong dollar would become 港元, not Hong Kong yuan. Since I can't read or write Arabic, I'm not even going to try and put the Egyptian pound here. It's only for your Anglocentric convenience that these currency names can be considered in romanisation.
You make insinuations about my fitness to edit Wikipedia. There are times I feel the same way about your dogmatic attitude. I took my potshot about your ability to pronounce these currency names because that seemed to be the only chink in the armour of your conviction that you and only you are totally right.
Bathrobe (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
User Dove1950 has called attention to my personal attacks and insults. I regret that I moved from impersonal to personal language in making my points. In many cases this was uncalled for. I could just as well have said 'This is "token internationalism"' rather than "You are a "token internationalist"' (which is what I originally said). I could have pointed out that Dove1950's suggestion to use the spelling inscribed on the Eiffel Tower looks superficially rigorous in terms of adherence to local practice, but is only half the story, given that most people don't know how to pronounce these words properly. If you don't know how to pronounce gulden or gineih, then using the foreign spellings doesn't necessarily make you more correct than using the English spellings.
Instead, I chose to challenge Dove1950's knowledge of foreign languages by asking whether he even knew the pronunciations of the words he was proposing. Unfortunately, this was construed as a "personal attack" and an "insult". Asking such a question in such a way was my mistake, and I apologise if it caused Dove1950 distress.
I am afraid that I have found Dove1950's attitude to other editors somewhat insulting at times (such as his comment about bringing editors "down a peg or two" and the presumptuous-sounding "an apology will suffice"). I allowed that to influence my own replies to his comments, which was quite wrong on my part.
While my mode of expression was inappropriate, however, I believe that there is substance to the points I have raised, and I hope that Dove1950 might look past the personalised nature of my comments to the substance of what I said.
Bathrobe (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal via NPOV

If we want to end this discussion, instead of appealing only to the Use English and Use Common Names naming conventions which are just guidelines (and hence, not written in stone), then we should use WP:NPOV which is a policy and is non-negotiable. To wit, the policy says:

“ All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. [...] The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. ”

Furthermore, please note the Undue Weight portion of that policy, to wit:

“ Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. ”

So going back to the use of the terms guilder vs. gulden in the English language. There are two significant views:

  1. The name of the pre-Euro Dutch currency in English is the guilder.
  2. The name of the pre-Euro Dutch currency in English is the gulden.

As shown by the numerous evidence from reliable and reputable sources pointed out here and in other talk pages, The first viewpoint above is overwhelmingly the popular view in the English-speaking world. Hence, naming the article as the Dutch gulden is a violation of WP:NPOV. We can argue the same for most of the rest of the contentious currency articles. I rest my case. --seav (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more if I tried. In fact, this is probably one of the strongest arguments in favour of using local names. The first "view" is clearly false since no official English name existed for the Dutch currency. Only the name gulden enjoys any kind of official status, as clearly evidenced by its exclusive use on the currency. This is not a "minority view" but a verifiable fact. Look at the banknotes. If there is a violation of WP:NPOV, it is the imposition of English terms on non-English articles. I'm glad to see that it has finally been conceded by at least one more person that naming conventions are only guidelines and that the whole premise for this debate is on very thin ice.
Dove1950 (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more with you, myself. So I'll try to break down your latest arguments above one-by-one. First you say that the first view is false. Rebuttal: according to another policy: Verifiability, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." So I don't care whether you say that the first view is false (and lots of people here on this page would certainly disagree with your claim of falseness). But the first view is a verifiable fact as evidenced by numerous reliable sources like the CNN and the BBC, and even Dutch websites. You yourself have admitted that the "Guilder may have been used more frequently in English" but the question is not whether something is accurate (which you mentioned when you further said, "but that does not make its continued, exclusive use accurate") but whether a fact is verifiable or not. The use of guilder in English is verifiable. Period. (You might say that Wikipedia favoring verifiability over accuracy is lamentable, but the thing is, if something is accurate, then it would likely gain verifiability. So the policy is not remiss and it fits with the NPOV policy.)
Second, you have a wrong notion of what is a majority and a minority point of view in the NPOV policy. It's not about whether a point of view is more "accurate" or more "official" but whether that point of view is held by a majority/minority of people. A vast majority of people believe that the Earth is round. A tiny minuscule say that it is flat. So the "earth is round" point of view is majority viewpoint while the "earth is flat" point of view is a tiny minority. Note that the question of whether a point of view is correct or not is not discussed. If Wikipedia were written before the time of Galileo, the majority view point would have been "the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around the earth" and that would take precedence, via NPOV, even though it's been proven inaccurate. So saying that name of the Dutch currency article should be at "Dutch gulden" is a violation of NPOV, since that name is a minority point of view in the English language. Again, you admitted that "guilder" has been used more frequently in English, therefore, you yourself then admitted that "guilder" is the majority point of view instead of "gulden", which means that you should agree that the name of the article should be at Dutch guilder if we were to follow the NPOV policy, specifically the Undue Weight section.
Third, the official status of a fact makes it simply verifiable, and not correct or accurate, and should not be given precedence just because it's official. There is no Wikipedia policy that says: "Official facts are given more precedence". In the absence of such policy, we go back to NPOV and Verifiability which both agree that the name of the article of the Dutch currency in English is Dutch guilder. This is also in agreement with the two naming convention guidelines: Use English and Use Common Names, which are both derived from the policies.
To recap:
  • NPOV policy - Dutch guilder is the majority view point so it should take precedence.
  • Verifiability policy - The name Dutch guilder is verifiable (CNN, BBC, Dutch websites) so it has a place in Wikipedia even though only one Wikipedian is vehement in saying it's wrong (though lots of others say it's right).
  • Use English guideline - "Dutch guilder" is English (and Dutch people agree).
  • Use Common Name guideline - "Dutch guilder" is more commonly used in English (and Dove1950 agrees).
  • Official "facts" are given no special privilege in Wikipedia. (Otherwise, Bill Clinton would have been at William Jefferson Clinton, which it is not.)
You can't get any more conclusive than that. If you disagree with the policies and guidelines (one of which is non-negotiable), then Citizendium would gladly take your services. --seav (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
To rebut:
  • How is it neutral to enforce a change in the names of things just because they aren't English?
  • How much more verification do you need than what is written on the currency?
  • Guilder is the English nickname for a Dutch thing, so why use a nickname rather than the real name?
  • Gulden is by far the more common name. I fear you are combining two divergent conventions in a way that cannot be supported.
If official facts are given no special privilege, we may as well all go home now, as there can never be a useful encyclopaedia based on the triumph of popular ignorance over unpopular facts. You want something non-negotiable? Try the truth.
Dove1950 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it does seem you fail to understand what NPOV really means. Also, I wasn't questioning the verifiability of what is written on the coins and banknotes; what I'm pointing out is that calling the currency as "guilder" in English is also a verifiable fact and that calling it "gulden" in English is a minority view. Furthermore, using nicknames is not wrong at all (see Bill Clinton, which you have so far ignored all this time), and nicknames are not unreal: they are as valid a name as the original one. Heck, stage names of actors and actresses are often used as the name of their articles, instead of their real names. As far as the Use Common Names convention goes, the spirit is to name the article in such a way that it would be most easily recognized by the majority of users of the English Wikipedia (considering ambiguity, of course). As the guidelines say: "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" If the English-speaking world (which is the primary audience of the English Wikipedia) largely calls the currency the "guilder" (as you already admitted), then Wikipedia naming the article as Dutch guilder follows the convention. Moreover, yes, official facts are not given any special privilege; otherwise, there would be no huge debate about the name of the country of Myanmar/Burma. If official facts or names are given privilege, then nobody would be debating whether the article should be at Myanmar, which is the name the ruling military junta has given it. If you feel that this is unfortunate, then you're free to go elsewhere. And saying that Wikipedia is therefore useless is just your personal opinion, belying the fact that millions of users do find Wikipedia useful, warts and all. Finally, truth is not non-negotiable, read the article on truth, if you want to learn about the constructivist, correspondence, coherence, and pragmatist theories about truth. --seav (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Dove1950, but:
  • No one is "enforcing a change in the names of things". These names are hallowed by tradition. It is you who is trying to force a change.
  • There are plenty of other sources than the name written on the currency. It is you who is wilfully closing his mind to other sources.
  • It is misleading to characterise "guilder" as a "nickname". This name has a long history in English in many official contexts. Official government sites don't use "nicknames". You are the one who is trying to twist history and convention by using the term "nickname". (Incidentally, the French article on the Dutch guilder is found at Florin néerlandais. The German article on "Pound sterling" is found at Pfund Sterling and the French article at Livre sterling. Are these also "nicknames"?)
  • One minute "guilder" is more common, next minute it's "gulden". Not sure who we're supposed to believe.
  • What "official facts" are we talking about? There are lots of "official" names for things. "Official" names don't tell the whole story. Why does the article on "French Republic" redirect to France. In the opening paragraph it even says "France (pronounced /fræns/, French: [fʁɑ̃s]), officially the French Republic (French: République française, pronounced [ʁepyˈblik fʁɑ̃ˈsɛz]), is a country whose metropolitan territory is located in Western Europe and that also comprises various overseas islands and territories located in other continents." There are plenty or reasons why the main article isn't placed at either the official French name (République française) or the official English name (French Republic). The failure to use the "official" name (as you call it) doesn't mean that we may as well all go home.
Bathrobe (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Lots of points. Let's try and deal with all of them.
  • It is not a verifiable fact that the Dutch currency was called the guilder. If it was, the name would have been used on the currency. You may as well claim that the name of the British currency is the livre.
  • There seems to be disagreement as to whether or not guilder should be characterized as a nickname. When referring to the Dutch currency, it clearly can be, whilst when referring to that of British Guiana, it is the correct name.
  • As I said above, if we're going to ignore official, verifiable facts, there's not much hope. If you don't already realise, Wikipedia is held in deep mistrust by a great many people because of precisely the kind of discrepancies we're discussing here.
  • "Truth is not non-negotiable" says it all really. It seems that some people would rather stick to rules than write accurate articles.
  • The change being enforced is from gulden (written on the currency) to guilder. Can I make it any clearer? We currently have pictures with gulden clearly displayed but with the caption saying guilder.
  • Florin was a name sometimes used for the Dutch currency but it is inappropriate to use it post 1815, except in reference to the 1826 issue of paper money in what's now Belgium.
  • Gulden is the most common name. Guilder is (probably) the more common name used in English.
  • The official fact I'm referring to is that the currency was called the gulden, as recorded on all examples of the currency.
We may as well all go home if this kind of blinkered application of rules spreads. It will ruin the accuracy of this encyclopaedia. Speaking personally, I only got involved to remove such inaccuracies. I've stayed on to expand the currency articles but the current changes are reversing the improvements we've seen over the past three years or so.
Dove1950 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You haven't really dealt with any of the points. All you are saying is that "if it's not written on the currency it's not real". There is no other point being made here.
You are free to believe that this is the only possible version of reality, and free to deny that it is a verifiable fact that the "Dutch currency was called the guilder". Unfortunately you are wrong, as even quick glance at the dictionary will reveal.
In fact, no one is denying that the name gulden appeared on the Dutch currency and that gulden was the Dutch name of the currency. The article clearly states the guilder is known as the gulden in Dutch. Thus, we can have it both ways. The currency article is under its common name in English. And the article itself makes it quite clear that the currency is known as the gulden in the language of the country where it is used. There is even an explanation that "The Dutch name gulden was a Middle Dutch adjective meaning "golden", and the name indicates the metal the coin was originally made of. The symbol ƒ or fl. for the Dutch guilder was derived from another old currency." Nobody is trying to force the name gulden off Wikipedia. All that people are saying is, "Use the common English name in the English-language article". You can use the Dutch name in the Dutch-language article. Just as people use the common German name in the German-language article, the common French name in the French-language article, etc.
Incidentally, the use of the symbol ƒ or fl. shows just how messy names in the real world can be. Despite the incontrovertible fact that the name written on the currency was gulden, how do you explain the fact that even the Dutch continued to use the symbol ƒ or fl? It's inconceivable in a world where the only possible name is the name written on the currency itself. It is, however, conceivable in a world where the truth (as you call it) embraces a wider scope than the ink on a note or the embossing on a coin.
As for the "nicknames" problem, you've equated words like "guilder" (and presumably "yen", "tugrik" etc.) to colloquial English terms like "quid". Linguistically these are two quite different matters and shouldn't be equated. By this criterion, you are putting "Munich" (for "München") on the same level as "Auld Reekie" (for "Edinburgh"), "the Big Apple" (for "New York"), or "Brizzie" (for "Brisbane"). The last three are true nicknames; Munich is the English-language name for the city known as München in German. The two can't be equated.
And yes, I would agree that the British currency is called the livre -- if you're speaking French.
Bathrobe (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely you must be joking. Calling the currency as the guilder is not a verifiable fact? So does that mean that the Britannica does not exist? "guilder former monetary unit of The Netherlands." I guess aside from having a wrong notion of neutrality, you also have a wrong notion of verifiability. Again, what is written on the currency itself is not the only verifiable thing. To give a non-guilder example, according to Philippine Republic Act No. 7653 (which is a law, and therefore makes it official) the name of the currency is the peso (in English), despite having "piso" on the coins and banknotes.
I did not say Wikipedia ignores official facts. I simply said, official facts are not given special preference. There's a difference between those two things. Try to get your logical thinking up. And whether or not "guilder" is a nickname, using nicknames in Wikipedia is not bad at all (see Bill Clinton, which you still ignore).
You're the only one who's saying "guilder" is inaccurate whereas the majority don't.
Nobody is forcing a change in name. The currency has been called "guilder" in English for around 500 years!
People mistrust Wikipedia simply because anybody can edit it and not because we name the Dutch currency as the "guilder". If you think people will mistrust Wikipedia because we call the currency the guilder, then they should mistrust the Britannica too.
Try to have an open mind. We also like Wikipedia to be accurate and useful but we simply do not believe that using "guilder" makes Wikipedia patently inaccurate. --seav (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with currency "names"

I am new here. I would like to contribute and I've made an initial attempt with some additions to Customs Gold Unit, Ethiopian Birr, and West African Pound. But I am having difficulty. I do not understand the reasoning behind the guidelines, so I cannot properly follow them. To be meaningful and useful, guidelines must not only suggest, they must also make clear the logic upon which they are based. Because WikiProject Numismatics uses expressions and conventions not commonly encountered in English-language numismatic literature, the rationale behind the guidelines should be made transparent.

Take the entry Russian ruble as an example. Headings such as "First ruble, Antiquity - December 31 1921" and "Second ruble, January 1 1922 - December 31 1922" are, if nothing else, innovative. They ignore the numerous monographs and books on this subject in English. Anyone acquainted with Russian monetary history or currency would readily comprehend a reference to a Russian or a Soviet ruble (or rouble) of 1922 or to the 1922 ruble, without further explanation, but a reference to "Second ruble" would be meaningless to anyone not familiar with the Wikipedia article.

Moreover, this naming convention (first, second, third...) begs for trouble. This should be apparent from a "first ruble" covering antiquity through 1921 (and "ruble" in this sense really dates back only to the period 1480-1520, hardly antiquity). Merely between 1768, when Russian paper money was introduced, and 1921, there were at least four different kinds of ruble (depending on the rationalte behind the adoption of this naming system). This makes it difficult to know where and how to insert additional information.

The Chinese yuan is another example. What is "First Yuan" supposed to mean?. This heading would have to include the original Spanish and Mexican dollars/pesos/yuan, the 1889 Chinese dragon dollar/yuan and the various provincial issues, the Chinese dollar/yuan of 1910 (never minted due to the 1911 Revolution), the 1914 dollar/yuan, and the 1935 reform Chinese legal tender dollar/yuan. And then comes "Second Yuan" - whatever that means.

This first-second-third terminology has no obvious meaning, does not foster clarity and intelligibility, and will eventually create problems. This convention and other guidelines seem to result from a narrow focus on contemporary currency. They may work well for the period after, say, 1960, but they could be very difficult or impossible to apply coherently to early periods of monetary history.Sivasova (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can name each successive redenomination on a case-by-case basic. Yugoslav dinar is an extreme example, and IMHO, the best way is by the year. As with Chinese yuan, I think "gold yuan" and "silver yuan" are enough because those the terms used by collectors. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree completely. "Silver yuan" and "gold yuan" are the usual terms used by economic and monetary historians, not just by collectors. Are we supposed to give priority to terms used by collectors? Being new here, I hesitate to change any heading or term already in use, and the criteria for naming is not at all clear to me.
On a related subject, do you know any Chinese speaker with a knowledge of Chinese monetary history and terminology who could comment on the question I raised at Talk: Chinese wén? Thank you for your response to my query.Sivasova (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plural

  • The existing and proposed guidelines both include this linguistic howler:
Use local grammar for plural form (i.e., 1000 yen, not 1000 yens)

There are two issues here:

  1. Which plural form? The former Finnish mark, in Finnish, has sixteen plural forms (one in each case), but when used with a number as shown in the (bad) example, the partitive singular form is used.
  2. "Yen" has a null plural in English, not just in Japanese. "*Yens" would be wrong whether or not you applied this dubious rule.

If the article describes a specific coin or banknote, it seems reasonable to require that the article be titled using the denomination as written on the object in question, transliterated as necessary. Otherwise, Wikipedia policy (use standard English spelling and grammar) should apply. 121a0012 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the best way to derive a satisfactory solution to everyone is to discuss plural in a separate section. (So is the guideline). We can concentrate on the article naming convention here. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I just moved this from #Discussion of guidelines change proposal to attract more audience. I think there are two things to be discusses here: 1) denominations for the physical currencies, nice even numbers like 1000 markkaa/markkas/marks 2) arbitrary monetary amount in the currency article and elsewhere like "3.14159 billion <units> have been issued" or "the metro ticket costs 3.14 <units>". Whatever the result of this discussion is, this part of guideline needs to be written separately. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Which forms should be carried over from other languages? Only the plural (and if so, which plural)? How about genitive (singular and plural)? Or other forms? It looks weird to see texts about "the krona"; usually you would write "kronan", the ending "-n" representing the English word "the". (212.247.11.155 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] New or not

While we're at the discussion of naming convention, I would like to raise this question. During redenomination, authorities often call the new currency "new something", or "some other good adjective + existing unit name". Do we separate them or not? Existing examples include New Taiwan dollar, Israeli new sheqel, Turkish new lira. Another example on the other extreme is the Yugoslav dinar, where several redenominations are written in one article. If we do separate, do we adopt the form <national adjective> <another adjective> <unit> or <another adjective> <national adjective> <unit>? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The first question is: does English still commonly use new Taiwan dollar? If not, we can disambiguate by Taiwan dollar and Taiwan dollar (1946-1949).
    • This is just an example; in this case, our article suggests English does use NT$. If so, that problem is solved; if not, we should move and rephrase.
  • We should not impose an order, if there is consensus outside Wikipedia. . If we must choose arbitrarily, New Taiwan dollar suggests an entity New Taiwan, which should be avoided; Turkish new lira is slightly preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There has been an obvious way to handle this up to now, and I see no reason to change it: If "new" is formally part of the new currency's name, we should use it and likely make a new article title; if the "new" does not appear on the coins and notes and is dropped a few months later, we should not. —Nightstallion 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In the case of the New Taiwan dollar, that by far the most common name used in English on the island and corresponds with its Chinese name which is roughly "New Taiwan currency." See Central Bank of the Republic of China website for usage examples such as pages titled "New Taiwan Dollar Notes and Coins" and even "Redeeming The Old NT Dollar Notes" (Old New? — notice the public information campaign posters). Local English language media search can confirm this although wire articles from outside the island will use "Taiwan dollar." As the NT$ article points out, the currency is referred to as "the NT" in popular English parlance to the extent that people would normally say "that oyster omelette costs 45 NT" rather than "45 dollars." — AjaxSmack 03:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, the currency of the PRC is called the renminbi here on the English wikipedia, although it's more commonely known as the yuan in the country where it is used (please correct me if I'm wrong). Likewise the currency of the ROC is the xintaibi (no accents to keep it consistant with the renminbi), which translated literally is the "New Taiwan Currency". Is xintaibi is printed on the currency in Chinese characters? The currency, however, is known in the English world as the "New Taiwan dollar". Does the Central Bank of the ROC use the term "New Taiwan dollar" in English? Under Proposal 1 above, the currency gets to retain its current name as the New Taiwan dollar. Under Proposal 2 above, I believe, there would be a requirement to rename it something else (whatever is defined to be used locally, which is probably not the dollar). If proposal 2 is approved then the best way to do it would be to rename the currency as the RoC Yuan (new) to satisfy the proposal above - the currency is called the Yuan locally, with the new in parenthesis to show that it is not the country that is new, it's the currency, and RoC because the WP:NC (Chinese) requires it to be "correct". --Novelty (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discusses at User talk:Dove1950#Taiwanese currencies. Long story short, there is a linguistic differences about how to identify a currency between English and Chinese. A currency unit like "dollar" can be just a unit, or refer to a currency in English. But Chinese often unconsciously prefer calling a currency "<locale> currency", hence "renminbi" and "xintaibi" (bi = currency). There are time deposit service foreign currencies here in Taipei. And on the interest rate table, I saw "Swiss franc" as 瑞士法郎 (法郎 = franc), but "New Zealand dollar" as 紐西蘭幣 (幣 = bi = currency). The phrases renminbi and xintaibi are used to uniquely identify which yuan you're talking about. All modern Chinese currencies are yuan. It just sounds redundant say yuan again. To answer your questions
  • The Central Bank of the ROC uses the term "New Taiwan dollar" in English.
  • "New" (xin, 新) has never been printed on banknotes or coins. "Tai" (台 or 臺) was implied by "Bank of Taiwan" on banknotes until year 2000 when the words were replaced by "Central Bank" (中央銀行). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Usage in Chinese is, as Chochopk says, a kind of mixed bag, but the tendency is to use yuan or bi as the name for all currency units. For instance:
U.S. dollars are known as 美元 (Мěi-yuán) or 美金 (Měi-jīn = American gold).
Euros are known as 欧元 (Ōu-yuán). 欧币 (Ōu-bì) is also found.
HK dollars are officially known as 港元 (Gǎngyuán), but most commonly referred to as 港币 (Gǎngbì).
Singapore dollars are known as 新加坡元 (Xīnjiāpō-yuán), but also known as 新元 (Xīn-yuán) or 新币 (Xīn-bì).
Renminbi are known as 人民币 (rénmínbì).
While theoretically 元 or 币 are interchangeable (and often are interchanged), actual usage tends to be come down to a matter of custom. For instance, while 美币 (Měi-bì) and 欧币 (Ōu-bì) are both possible, they are far less common than the terms using 元 or (in the case of the dollar) 金. 人民元 (rénmínyuán) is almost never found in Chinese, although it is the standard term in Japanese.
Some currencies, like the franc (法郎 fǎláng) and the pound (镑 bàng) have their own names. So 英镑 (Yīng-bàng) is the overwhelming term for the pound sterling. However, 英币 (Yīng-bì) is not unknown. 英元 (Yīng-yuán) does not appear to be used at all.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, it's quite possible to get these things mixed up. This happened in the case of an interpreting screw-up I once witnessed, where an interpreting relay from English to Chinese to Japanese managed to result in the following: 1,000 Canadian dollars (English original) --> 1,000元 (yuán) (Chinese version) --> 1,000元 (gen) (Japanese version). In the process of translation, Canadian dollars ended up as RMB! The mixup was caused by the fact that 元 can refer to any currency in Chinese, while in Japanese the same term 元 refers only to the RMB. Somewhere in the relay, one of the interpreters missed the fact that the unit in question was Canadian dollars.
Bathrobe (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to add to what User:Chochopk and User:Bathrobe said. The issue of rénmínbì vs yuán and xīntáibì vs yuán does derive from Chinese usage. Renminbi (literally, "people's money) and xīntáibì ("new Taiwan currency") are the names for the currency as a whole whereas yuán is a particular base unit of that currency. (A little like the penny is a unit of the pound sterling.) Because of the Chinese grammatical need for measure words for countable nouns (like "a loaf of bread" in English), Chinese usage requires use of both a measure word and a currency name. So one Chinese yuán would be (formally) read as "one yuán of rénmínbì" or "two yuan of xīntáibì." (Informally, the word kuài 塊 is often used instead of yuán.) In Chinese, this usage of dual terms applies to other currencies such as the Hong Kong dollar (gǎngbì 港幣 vs yuan 元) or U.S. dollar (měijīn 美金 vs yuán 元). So US$1 would be "one yuán of měijīn.
In the case of the New Taiwan dollar, the currency (xīntáibì) is translated as "New Taiwan dollar" while the unit (yuán) is "dollar." This terminological overlap allows for one name conceptually in English (and one article at Wikipedia). Likewise for Hong Kong, &c. However, the difference in names of renminbi and yuán and the use of both in English-language contexts (RMB / ¥) in China necessitates two articles to explain the two terms.
As far as the English name for xīntáibì, New Taiwan dollar is the unequivocal English name (see links above). — AjaxSmack 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the explainations! -- NovelTy 14:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)