Talk:Euro/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Create History of the euro?

I propose we merge Introduction of the euro, Enlargement of the eurozone and Eurozone into History of the euro. The term "Eurozone" doesn't have any official status and it's meaning could be explained in a single article on the euro's history.

At least we need to clarify which article should contain "the big table/list" of eurozone enlargement. Today Eurozone and Enlargement of the eurozone have something similar. If consensus is not to merge, we should make some lucid and coherent table templates. Perhaps the Eurozone should have its own article, but Introduction of the euro, Enlargement of the eurozone should definitely be merged into a single list/table which supplements a potential euro history article. (An article with lots of text shouldn't have a monster table in addition)- .  . 18:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure it is necessary, but I don't have strong feelings about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Same here. —Nightstallion 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The two existing articles is a nice separation between what happened in the past and what is going to happen. Eurozone is bloated with future information, that I cannot deny. But it should be moved to Enlargement of the eurozone, a relatively new article. Eurozone should be light, describes the current status, and summarises past and future events. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the introduction article should be kept separate, as should Eurozone. However we do have a problem, information on expansion of the Eurozone should be totally shipped out to Enlargement, as ChoChoPK says, and kept light. Enlargement should reference back to introduction but I think they are two different topics. However an overview is needed, I suggest a full History section at the top of the Euro article that links into the introduction and enlargement articles for detail.- J Logan t: 11:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentIt already does, kinda. When I wrote Introduction, I more or less cribbed the pre-1999 history from the Euro article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The euro and the eurozone are different things and each has its own history. Further, much of the eurozone article is about the future. I generally agree with ChoChoPK's comments above. Mcarling (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Each article is rather large already (next thing that would happen if we merged one into the other would be someone asking for a split, and rightly so), and each has its own focus. Any casual user will get what they want and need. <KF> 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The two articles deal with somewhat different subjects, and both would be greatly damaged by the merger. Besides, as KF said, it wouldn't be long before someone asked for a split if we agreed to merge one into the other. Emc² • talk 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is already too long. As said above the euro and the eurozone are different things. I also agree with having a master article that completes the euro yet linking to everything about it, I also feel that this article is best suited as the master article as the name of the article is most likely what someone would type who is looking for info on the euro.

Public opinion on the euro

Unless all polls are fresh or pan-european, it's selective POV cherry picking. If we can't provide that, I think we should delete the whole section. - .  . 18:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Done it. - .  . 23:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Big merge

There are a lot of articles related to the euro currency now. It is hard to watch and change similar updates for all of them. Also much text information and images are being repeated in different articles or are quite the same. What is your opinion of trying to merge articles

in one large article. Just this process needs to be done very accurately. So can be created clear situation in this field and we can modify some formatting as well.

Or another way is to create two articles:

  • Euro, where will be written everything about the euro coins and banknotes.
  • Eurozone, where will be written everything about adoption, enlargement etc. of the euro currency in different countries.

Please write your opinion. Thanks.--Dima1 15:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Way too much info, would be against common sense and practice in wikipedia. Will never happen. On "the other way", I'll instead advert to the merge discussion i started above. - .  . 23:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree. Introduction of the euro was basically a spinoff of this article because it was felt there wasn't room to do a full treatment within the context of the Euro article. To merge all of these would lead to a really long article, probable loss of content, and a real pain in the neck. I would say leave things as they are and consider some bilateral mergers if deemed appropriate.Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely disagree. —Nightstallion 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The merged article(s) will be too large. Coins and banknotes absolutely deserve their own articles. It is the standard procedure of currency articles. And as I said above, I'm against merging intro and enlargement. However, I do want to see the elimination of repeated or inconsistent information across various articles. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Definitely not, way too much for one article. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.• 11:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Merged articles will be too large. I do however suggest analyzing all articles and moving things around a bit. There are some parts covered in multiple articles, which is not really useful. Van der Hoorn (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New high against pound

The euro currently exchanges at 0.72547 GB pounds per euro. This is an all-time high. If trading closes at or above this amount, it will be a record. 86.149.12.93 (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is true, the FT says the pound went past 0.72547 and reached £0.7256 against the euro, which is indeed the highest since the euro's introduction. FT.com Perhaps a note in the article, under the 'exchange rate' section? Rossenglish (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I found this too BBC News article 0.72851 now. 86.149.12.93 (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus and Malta 2008

I've started an edit plan at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#Cypriot pound and Maltese lira. Images (maps) are yet to be compiled. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoever jumps at updating the article first, don't forget that Akrotiri and Dhekelia are doing to be users without agreement too. Another small point though, when the future area is updated, I think it should be cut down to just one section, so we don't duplicate info and dates with the Enlargement page.- J Logan t: 13:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't the UK bases have an agreement with the ROC government? In that case, I suppose that they should be listed in the MC/SM/VA category and not in the AD/ME/Kosovo category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.155 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
See my reply to that on Talk:Eurozone- J Logan t: 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Slovenian

Why is the Slovenia name for Euro in the infobox? Might be used a but but officially it is still euro over there.- J Logan t: 14:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the point is to show the actual word used. The Slovenian Wikipedia uses "evro", as agreed by Linguistic issues concerning the euro. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that the case with a lot of languages, euro is still the official term and Slovenia gave up on that. The Latvian's are fighting still but the Slovenes aren't. What's written on the notes? - J Logan t: 22:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A new reserve currency

I find it odd that the Euro's share of global reserves is constantly juxtaposed against that of the dollar, specifically by claiming not that the Euro in 2007 reached its highest level of global reserves but that the dollar reached its lowest level since records began in 1999. In fact, the dollar's share of reserves has been lower and records have been kept for far longer than this, and the dollar's share of reserves is not a perfect opposition of the Euro. I find it disturbing that the Wiki entries for both the dollar and the euro seem to be tainted by the same sort of Europhilia so prevalent in lay media. Sandreckoner (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree there is too much of it, in that instance it is useful to note where these reserves are coming from. In fact in this sense it doesn't serve well to show that it isn't that the euro is so popular, but that the dollar is becoming less so. Hence it is no achievement for the euro, it just caught it on the rebound.- J Logan t: 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Problem is, the dollar isn't becoming less popular, with virtually all of the "decline" being accounted for by revaluation with the euro's increase vs the dollar. The majority of the "gain" in the past year (and a bit beyond) has come from this revaluation, as COFER is measured at exchange rates. Dollar accumulation has, in fact, surged. ($175 billion in q3, the sixth largest quarterly increase, with a year-on-year increase of $800 to $900 billion USD.)
See Brad Setser's commentary and breakdown of the new numbers here:
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/setser/234493/
His estimates for reporting industrial economies are $3 billion to dollar portfolios and $16 billion to non-dollar; reporting emerging economies advanced their dollar portfolios by $61 billion vs $38 billion in non-dollar; and for non-reporting emerging economies, $113 billion in new dollar holdings vs $44 billion in non-dollar. (See the link above for more detailed discussion of his modeling.)
To me, this is an important issue, and touches on the validity of the current system of measure for foreign exchange reserves with regard to the strength and attractiveness of a reserve currency and long-term extrapolation. Sandreckoner (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Languages

> (Undid revision 181268827 by Stefan2 (talk) not an EU official language) (undo)

And so what? If you want to include all official EU languages, then you'd have to add Bulgarian and lots of other languages too. Turkish is an official language of an Eurozone country. (Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

Bulgaria is not a Euro user country, and Languages of the European Union states that even though Turkish is a language of Cyprus, it's not a language of the EU. El Greco(talk) 22:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
While I was just about to jump into say the same thing, thinking about it is there actually a connection between the euro and the official EU languages? The euro is not so much the currency of the EU, but of those member states which adopted it. Perhaps it should in fact use the names in the official languages of each member state?- J Logan t: 22:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion:
  • Either all official languages of all officially using countries, or
  • All official languages of the EU
In the former case, Turkish needs to be added. In the latter case, Bulgarian and a number of other languages need to be added. (Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC))
It should be all official languages of the EU. El Greco(talk) 23:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me start by saying EU official languages are not relevant because the native language parameter in the infobox encompasses “all official languages of the official users” (see the established guidelines at Template:Infobox Currency). Therefore, this encompasses Greek, Maltese, Slovenian, and Turkish as they are official languages of countries that are “official users” of the euro. Latvian and Bulgarian are not included because Latvia and Bulgaria do not use the euro. Serbian is not included, even tough Kosovo uses the euro, because Kosovo is not an “official users”. – Zntrip 00:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

But the EU does not print the Euro in the Turkish language. It prints it in its official languages. El Greco(talk) 01:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
EU and Eurozone
This is an old issue. As I have said before numerous times, please don't mix EU with Eurozone. This article is about a currency, not a political entity. There are EU countries that don't use the euro. There are non-EU members that use the euro. An old discussion (it took me 7 Page-Down's to scroll) started with whether "евро" is Bulgarian or Serbian. Hexagon1 and Stefan2 considered euro as a "European thing", therefore евро is Bulgarian. Zntrip and I consider it a currency, so евро is Serbian. This doesn't matter anymore because we reached a compromise:
If the infobox has both using_countries and unofficially_using_countries parameters, then list all official languages of the using_countries (official users).
This is quite simple and reasonable formula that is applicable to all currencies. And the result for euro is Greek, Maltese, Slovenian, Turkish, English, French, German, ... In theory, all should be listed, but since "euro" is the spelling of most of the languages, it's collapsed as one. So this leaves Greek, Maltese, and Slovenian. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget about Turkish (official language of Cyprus). (Stefan2 (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC))
In my opinion it's quite easy: Just use the spellings, that are officially used by the ECB as the responsible agency. Full stop. This should be equivalent to the spellings on the actual banknotes and coins, which adapt over time. I'm strongly opposing any artificial enlargement of the set of different spellings in this article, because we could end up some day in listing the various spellings in local dialects ... it was common sense of the introduction of the euro that the name should indeed be "euro" in all countries, Greek being an exception because of the different alphabet. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anybody here wants to add an language for the sake of adding more languages. I for one don't think the addition of Turkish is artificial. European Union and South Africa both have the names in many languages in its infobox. If there's a legit reason, it's never too many. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the difference here is that there is an official name and multiple unoffical local variants. The official spelling of the euro according to the European Central Bank is "euro" in the Latin script and "ευρώ" in the Greek script. That's it! - I looked at your examples of the infoboxes of European Union and South Africa. Both include the localized spellings in collapsible lists only. I still strongly believe we should follow the official naming by the ECB, but including the unofficial variants in a collapsible list as in those articles could be a good compromise. What are your thoughts on this? - Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible is fine. It has been a standard practice in many different types of infoboxes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with that, but it should just includes the (relevant) official ECB/EU languages. Let's remember with South Africa and EU article pages, those collapsible lists include the official languages of the respective nations, not what ever language exists. El Greco(talk) 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I just done that change to a collapsible list in the article, it's an acceptable compromise for everyone, I think. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought we have an established rule at Template:Infobox Currency/doc derived by the consensus at Template talk:Infobox Currency#What languages to include in the infobox?. But consensus changes. Editors come and go. So I will repeat my rationale here again.
First I want to state a very important principle on the design of infobox: Make a rule that makes sense, and then generate data from it. Avoid making rules that fit some data that were made in a random, ad-hoc fashion.
The result of the previous consensus was: All official languages of the official users (i.e. members of the "using_countries" attribute) at the national level, plus all that appear on the physical currencies. This rule is simple, makes sense, and is applicable to multi-national currencies or mono-national currencies. If you think this rule is unreasonable, please point out why, or suggest a new rule. Please don't talk about euro, ECB, EU, as these all revolve around one currency, or one instance of {{Infobox Currency}}. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if this is the common understanding that should be applied to all "infobox currency", I wonder why neither the US dollar infobox contains the names in the various spellings of the other 9 countries using the dollar, nor does the Pound sterling infobox contain the relevant names in Gaelic, Welsh, Pitkern ... you name it. - It seems to me, that this previous consensus got only partially applied, or it's not the consensus anymore. -- Furthermore, the situation with the euro is somewhat special. As stated below in the following section, there is just one and only one name of the euro currency, and every current and future member state is legally binded to enforce the usage of this name - regardless of alphabet or local spelling rules or whatever. In my strong opinion we should really refrain from using any other name in wikipedia as well. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"United States dollar" has its name in Spanish, Portuguese, and Tetum until 2007-11-08. I've been unable to monitor currency articles since summer 2007. Unlike the euro, the USD doesn't utilized the unofficial_users parameter. So all users are under using_countries. So under the current formula, USD in Spanish, Portuguese, Tetum, as well as Marshallese should be listed. If someone manages to do some research and determine which of the 9 other users are "unofficial", then I have no problem with the removal of these languages. But do you know if Marshall Islands is an official user? Did it ever have any bilateral agreement with the U.S.? Or is it unilateral? Repeat the same question 8 more times. The lack of "unofficial users" is just a result of lack of research.

The infobox of United Kingdom says "Official languages: English (de facto), Recognised regional languages: Welsh, Irish ...". Regional (sub-national) ("national" in the sense of sovereign state/country) are not included in the infobox. So pound sterling does not violate the current formula.

I will add in my 2c in the next section. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The UK has no official language. English appears on the physical currency, so English it is. Welsh, Cornish, etc. are only regional languages which are never included in currency infoboxes. I think this is all really silly. Just read the established parameters. If you don't like them, start a discussion at Template:Currency Infobox. – Zntrip 07:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This in not what official languages a certain country has, this is what official languages the EU/ECB has set forth. El Greco(talk) 14:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried to generalize, you try to specialize. I tried to discuss a principle, you talk about this instance. This isn't just about the euro's infobox. This is about how we choose the list of languages for all currency infoboxes. The current method reads All official languages of the official users (i.e. members of the "using_countries" attribute) at the national level, plus all that appear on the physical currencies. And obviously you don't like this one. You keep talking about EU. But not all currencies have a multi national entity above it. How do you generalize what you have in mind to other currencies? OK ECB. I suspect that you could suggest a new rule like "all languages of the issuing authority". If my guess is correct, then why don't you say so earlier? We're running in circles here. As I have said, discuss the rule/method/formula of picking the language, then apply to all. If you want something like the languages of the issuing authority, then I have to raise these questions
8 banks issue banknotes in the U.K. Is English the only language of these banks? Does, for example, Bank of Scotland use Scottish Gaelic?
I suspect that Banque des États de l'Afrique Centrale uses French. But does it use Spanish, one of the official languages of Equatorial Guinea? I don't know. Could you answer that? Before 1993 each member state had their own variant of the CFA franc notes, much like the euro coins today. Equatorial Guinean notes were bilingual. Where does this leave us?
Both countries have many official languages. But what about the central banks? Do you know for sure that the working languages of these two banks are the same as the official languages of the countries?
It currently has Danish, Faroese, and Kalaallisut because the currency is also used in the Faroe Islands and Greenland. What does your suggestion impact the DKK? Do you know that the Danmarks Nationalbank not use Faroese and Kalaallisut? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The EU/ECB doesn't print in Turkish. It prints in it's official languages. I don't understand why that's so hard to comprehend. El Greco(talk) 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Everyone here understands that. But you don't understand how to generalize. This is not about whether Turkish is a language of EU/ECB. This is about the method we pick the languages. If we change the way we pick languages for euro's infobox, does that impact the results of other currency infoboxes? I tried using so many different ways to convey my idea, and you never answer my questions or directly respond to my new comments/questions and keep saying "Turkish is not a language of EU/ECB. Let me make it real simple and consolidate to these questions. Please answer.
  • Do you agree that we must have a consistent rule of generating the list of languages in the currency infobox, and then apply this rule to all infoboxes?
  • If so, are you suggesting that the rule to be something like, "all languages of the issuing authority", which is not exactly the same as the current rule?
  • And if so, can you answer my questions of the obvious obstacles faced with the new method? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If this is an encyclopedia why generalize? If the population of a city is generalized as 100,000, why generalize it when the actual population is 98,524. Take the US Dollar, its used in how many countries yet it's only written in English. Are we going to write what every country calls the dollar in that language? Same as the Euro, it's used in the EU and is only written in the official langauages of the EU. To answer your questions.
  • Yes, look at the US Dollar. Multiple countries use yet its written in one language.
  • It should be the languages of the issuing authority. Take the US Dollar again, do you see it written in Arabic or Spanish? No, because it's only issued in English. It doesn't matter what those countries call it, because it's issued and called the US Dollar.
  • I don't see any obstacles faced with this new method. El Greco(talk) 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you still don’t seem to understand. When using Template:Infobox Currency, there are guidelines followed so that currency articles are consistent. For the currency_name_in_local parameter, the instructions at Template:Infobox Currency/doc. Turkish is included under on the currency_name_in_local parameter because Turkish is an official language of Cyprus, which uses the euro. You seem to just be changing the subject. The issuing authority has nothing to do with it. – Zntrip 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Zntrip, I believe El Greco and I are negotiating a new rule. El Greco, back to your question. The reason that only English is written in the infobox is because only the U.S. is listed as the official user. Both the current rule (all languages of all official users), and your suggested rule (languages of the issuing authority) produce the same result for the USD. A few months ago, when the USD had no separation between "official users" and "unofficial users", Spanish, Portuguese, and Tetum were included as well.
If not generalizing, then why infobox? El Greco, please answer the my earlier obstacle questions about the pound sterling, Central African CFA franc, Indian rupee, South African rand, and Danish krone. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Generalizing is not approximating, as you seem to misunderstand. Generalizing is about having a consistent rule on all instances of the same class of object. This is an encyclopedia. Why do you think almost every biographical article starts with "John Doe (birth date - death date) was a (national adjective) (profession)."? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
First, can Zntrip stop for the duration of this discussion stop reverting the page? It's not that the user is adding the Turkish language he's reverting the whole intro section to an older version. Now for the British Pound, if I'm not mistaking the printing body is the Royal Mint? So whether the issuing banks are in Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland, etc. the money is actually printed by the Royal Mint. For the Danish Krone, what I'm basically saying is what I stated above, what ever the issuing body prints the language on the money. It can be more than one language, I'm not saying it's got to be one language, if the issuing body in Denmark issues its currency in three language, than three languages should be in the infobox. (I'll comment on the rupee, CFA, and the rest of your comment tomorrow, It's time to log off for me tonight). El Greco(talk) 02:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Bank of England prints currency notes in the UK, but only for themselves. It's possible they contract it out, same with the Sottish and Northern Irish banks. Royal Mint only strikes coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can't find any evidence, that states otherwise that the bank notes of the United Kingdom are printed in any other language other than English. No mention of Scottish Gaelic or Irish. The rupee as stated in it's wiki article is printed in 15 of the 22 official langauges of India. Same goes with the South African rand, all languages of South Africa are printed on them. The CFA franc is written in French, since the originators were former French colonies, and the only issuing body is the Bank of Central African States headquartered in Cameroon. Maybe I didn't explain the generalization thing well enough before, but can stating the name of a currency in an encyclopedic article in another language other than the one its printed in be justified. I mean if you're doing it for translation purposes as to see whether what one language calls a currency then fine, but if you do it to establish that a certain currency is written in some language that its not, then the encyclopedic article is not doing its job. It's almost providing a sense of false information. Just because a certain party is using a certain currency, doesn't mean that the issuing authority of that currency it complying (for the lack of a better word) with that certain party. If I take a Russian ruble for example, it's used in Russia which speaks Russian yet as the current Infobox policy states to include All official languages of the official users, but there are 27 official languages in Russia. Those aren't included in the infobox. Hence that the article only writes it in Russian since that's the only language that is printed on the ruble by Goznak. El Greco(talk) 19:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you start discussing a generalized idea, rather than euro/EU/ECB. There is one thing you misunderstand about the standing rule. "All official languages" refer to languages at the national level. List of official languages in Russia states in the first sentence: "Although Russian is the only federally official language of the Russian Federation...". The current formula also says "It is better missing than to guess. It is ok to be missing.". So the example of the Russian ruble, or the lack of a certain language is not in violation with the current formula. Anyway, you will still speak against the current rule.

Zntrip, are you ok with changing the rule to "All languages of the issuing authority"? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Take the Philippines, for another example, it's official languages are English and Filipino, yet when you look at their currency, only Filipino seems to be printed on the currency. El Greco(talk) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I sign on I have two questions: what would appear for the euro and what would appear on the Central African CFA franc page since Spanish and Portugese are official languages of Equatorial Guinea? – Zntrip 03:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

UK £1-coins usually (always?) have text written on the edge. This text is sometimes in Latin or Gaelic. Should the Latin and Gaelic names of GBP be listed at the GBP page? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

"Official languages of the issuing body", would that mean displaying a Bulgarian name on the euro page (since Bulgarian is an official language of the ECB)? Or would it only mean listing German (i.e. "Euro" with a capical "E"), since the ECB is located in Germany? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

That's a good question, 212.247.11.155. We have to direct this question to the nominator of new rule, El Greco. Is it "language(s) of the issuing body" or "language(s) of the issuing body + language(s) on the physical currency"? Your previous comment seems to lean toward the latter. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The ECB happens by the luck of the draw (well, in theory anyway) to be physically located in Dusseldorf, Germany - but formally it is located in Dusseldorf, European Union. It is not a German institution. I suspect that its lingua franca is English rather than German but formally it has up to 27 official languages. So it is not valid to say that the rules of German grammar apply. --Red King (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No one said that the ECB is a German institution. Nor are we discussing the application of German grammar here. The point is that all the countries using the euro have agreed with legal obligation that the name of the currency is "euro" and that no regular plural form applies. Not being a native speaker of English I can just come up with the analogy of the word "information" - would you ever say "I was just told some informations"? ... (By the way, the ECB is in Frankfurt, not Düsseldorf) ... Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
(reply to 212.247.11.155 and ChoChoPK) Well "languages of the issuing body" is basically the same as "language(s) of the issuing body + language(s) on the physical currency" (with the second one giving the way to phrases that appear on the currency like latin which appears only appears on the $1 bill). I'm suggesting it should be "languages of the issuing body", I think including the phrases are neglible and in the case of the US dollar, Latin appears on just one bill. But, "languages of the issuing body" should include the relevant nations using the currency. In the case of Bulgaria, it's not using the currency just yet, it will soon but currently its not. El Greco(talk) 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're reaching an agreement here. What about

  • languages of the issuing body, and
  • languages on the physical currencies (French on Lebanese lira), and
  • exclude languages that appear on motto ("E Pluribus Unum", of the US, "Dieu et mon droit" of UK, if it ever appears) that are in such languages for historical reasons, and regional languages on rotation (the don't-be-stupid clause). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Am I picking one of those three, or are they being culminated into a new guideline? El Greco(talk) 01:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't make it clear. It's a package deal. I added the "and"s. I personally have no problem with it. We just need a consensus before officially culminated. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. El Greco(talk) 17:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What is a "central bank language"? Many central banks provide websites in various languages. So should English be listed for SEK[1], DKK[2], JPY[3], CNY[4], KRW[5] and lots of other currencies? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

This discussion isn't about what languages Central Banks make their websites available in, but rather what languages the issuing authorities print money in. El Greco(talk) 00:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought that this was about the internal working languages of the central banks and not about the languages of the text printed on the physical money? A language in which the central bank's website is available might qualify for the former. (Stefan2 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

Anyway, if you decide to list currencies only in the languages printed on the actual notes and coins, which languages would be listed for EUR? On euro notes I see that the name of the currency is written two languages: as " EURO" and as "ΕΥΡΩ". While the latter is obviously Greek, which language is the former? Is it German (spelling "Euro" with a capital "E")? Or is it French (spelling "euro" with a small "e")? (Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

None of the above. EURO is language independent Latin script, which is used (with minor variants) from Iceland to Turkey and from Portugal to Lisbon (and beyond). ΕΥΡΩ is certainly Greek script, which happens to have just one language using it. The proposed official spelling by the (ECB) in the Cyrillic script is ЕУРО, deliberatly trying to make it language independent too (Cyrillic is used for many languages from Siberia to Bosnia-Herzogovina). It has nothing to do with specific languages. People are trying to make the currency fit the standard infobox when what actually needs to happen is that the infobox be changed/modified to fit this special currency. --Red King (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The current version (Latin script + Greek script + 2 unofficial) is an exception to the standardized form. It's been there for weeks. I believe this issued is resolved. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but the current rule, as well as all other rules I've heard about, only mention which languages to use in the infobox, and not which scripts to use. So the infobox would need to contain the name of the currency in English (+ loads of other languages), although the name could (I suppose) be given in any script. "The proposed official spelling by the (ECB) in the Cyrillic script is ЕУРО, deliberatly trying to make it language independent too (Cyrillic is used for many languages from Siberia to Bosnia-Herzogovina)." I'm not sure how the spelling "ЕУРО" would make it language-independent? It would just be the name of the currency in one European language (Finnish?) written in Cyrillic script. The French name of the currency is very different to the German name of the currency, and so a Cyrillic spelling based on the French name would, I suppose, be very different from a Cyrillic spelling based on the German name. In Japanese you usually write yūro (ユーロ) which is the English name of the currency. Compare with, say, the German name of the currency, which would be oiro (オイロ), or the French name, which would be urō (ウロー). Quite different, isn't it? (Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
Why are you so hung up about languages? Only because you seem fixated on a nationalist infobox for an international currency. The letter form EURO is pronounced many different ways in western europe. The letter form ЕУРО is prpnounced many different ways in Eastern Europe. If by some extraordinary feat of plate tectonics, Japan or China end up in the European Union, perhaps a letter form for their multiple pronunciations will appear too. There is no mandated pronunciation. It is only a letter form. I say again: the fault is with the infobox, not with the currency. Change the infobox and the problem goes away. --Red King (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Name and linguistic issues

This section is getting bogged down in detail again. How about we reduce it to something like: The formal titles of the currency are "euro" for the major unit and "cent" for the minor (one hundreth) unit. Again in formal usage, these names are invariant in the plural. Of course these styles are often in conflict with national language norms of spelling and grammar: it is the policy {fact}} of the EU that these national norms should continue in local informal usage. For the different national styles, see Linguistic issues concerning the euro.

Comments? --Red King (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Well, I would put it a lot more bluntly into the text: The only official name of the currency is "euro", and only the nominative singular case is to be used (no plural "euros"). The regulations are quite strict and binding, "legal act pertaining to primary law", stating that "the name of the single currency (euro) is spelled identically in all language versions". Every member country is legally obliged to ensure this naming convention, including the "new countries" joining the euro during current and future enlargements of the Eurozone.

Community law requires a single spelling of the word “euro” in the nominative singular case in all Community and national legislative provisions, taking into account the existence of different alphabets.
[...]

The recent Council Regulation (EC) No 2169/2005 of 21 December 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 on the introduction of the euro confirms the correct spelling of the single currency. First, Regulation (EC) No 974/98 states in all language versions that “the name given to the European currency shall be the ‘euro’”. Second, all language versions of Regulation (EC) No 2169/2005 refer to the “euro”.

In 2003 all the Member States ratified the Decision of the Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or Government of 21 March 2003 amending Article 10.2 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, where, once more, this time in a legal act pertaining to primary law, the name of the single currency is spelled identically in all language versions.

This unambiguous and definitive position of the Member States is also binding on the Member States with a derogation. Article 5(3) of the Act concerning the conditions of accession stipulates that “the new Member States are in the same situation as the present Member States in respect of declarations or resolutions of, or other positions taken up by, the European Council or the Council and in respect of those concerning the Community or the Union adopted by common agreement of the Member States; they will accordingly observe the principles and guidelines deriving from those declarations, resolutions or other positions and will take such measures as may be necessary to ensure their implementation”.

— Source: European Central Bank, CONVERGENCE REPORT MAY 2007 - [6]
In my opinion is the strictness of these regulations not completely reflected in the current text and I think an update is necessary. Furthermore, I doubt that the statement "It is the policy of the EU that these national norms should continue in local informal usage." is true. The above cited regulations would demand exactly the opposite policy. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The linguistic section is ovbiously getting bloated again. There are always some casual editors who come alone and add information about his/her native language with no regard of the editor's note:
<!-- advice to editors: this paragraph is intended to be just a summary. If you wish to add material, please consider using the "Linguistic issues" article to do so.-->
I think we shouold repeat the same notice at the top of the section, and merge/move the recent addition about Maltese to the main linguistic article.
As with the "legal spelling", I think it is worth mentioning, with a summary in euro, and with greater detail in Linguistic issues concerning the euro. However, common "informal" usage in each language must be mentioned as well. It is no surprise to me, a non-EU person, that many new members wants a differnet spelling. "Euro" is of course derived from the word "Europe". And "Europe" is spelling with "Euro????" in many of the languages of the old members, but not in the languages of some of the new members. It is not without reason that the Bulgarian wants "евро", and not "еуро", Maltese use "ewro", and Latvians use "eiro" or "eira". I think euro should summarize the fact that many re-derive the word "euro" by taking the first 4 letters of "Europe" in their language. If you ask me, this is encyclopedic too. This is Wikipedia, not Wikisource. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
But the English Style Guide paragraph 20.7, says:

20.7 The euro.
Like ‘pound’, ‘dollar’ or any other currency name in English, the word ‘euro’ is written in lower case with no initial capital.
The Interinstitutional Style Guide (section 7.3.1) states that the plurals of both ‘euro’ and ‘cent’ are to be written without ‘s’ in English. Do this when amending or referring to legal texts that themselves observe this rule. However, in all other texts, especially documents intended for the general public, use the natural plurals ‘euros’ and ‘cents’.
In documents and tables where monetary amounts figure largely, make maximum use of the € symbol (closed up to the figure) or the abbreviation EUR before the amount.

— Source: European Commission, Directorate General for Translation: English Style Guide [7]
It would be reasonable to assume that there are equivalent statements in all the language style guides. Your witness! --Red King (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To intrude, I'll complain that the name and linguistic issues contains proseline particularly w.r.t. Bulgaria. --Vuo (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Which underlines my point that none of this detail belongs in the main article. --Red King (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Euro adoption *.*

Image:Euro adoption *.* have been requested for deletion on Commons. Please participate at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Euro adoption x. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proseline section

The section Against other major currencies is proseline, a mishmash of news, speculation and factual statements. The problem is inherently aggravated by the topic, namely exchange rate, which is all numbers and figures. A better article should have a sound historical analysis where the effects of inherent weakening of the dollar and actual strenghtening of the euro are distinguished. --Vuo (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Euro as a reporting currency by international organizations

Another issue worth discussing about the Euro is its use as an "official" or "reporting" currency by multi-national organisations when it comes to accounts and reports prepared by the organisation itself or submitted to the organisation by its members. SimonMackay (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

New countries joining the eurozone.

Although I just changed the dates of four countries based on a recent analysts poll, I do wonder myself if this information is reliable, since it is still speculation. Shall we agree to take only dates for future joins from the official announcements made from the local banks? Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As it is only speculation it has to come out. We can only use the official announcements (and cite them). --Red King (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

GBP staying almost in sync with the euro

Are there sources explaining why GBP on the graph of balances is almost in parallel with it constantly? Can it be just written that it's because 'european economy' is in close 'contact' with the british one? --Leladax (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to Euro#Against other major currencies? The graph needs updating.
But no, that's too trite. Although continental Europe represents nearly 2/3rds of UK trade, the remainder is actually or heavily related to the USD. For as long as the USD was reasonably stable, the £2:€3 rate was stable (2001 to mid 2007). But when the USD dived, GBP was dragged down with it. My €0.02 worth anyway, not citable! --Red King (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
yes but after jan 04 there seems to be a disconnection. --Leladax (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
To be a little more precise, from Jan 2000 to Jan 2003, the rate was EUR1.6:GBP1.0 +/- 5%, then it fell over the next six months until June 2003, where it stabilised at EUR1.4:GBP1.0 +/- 5% until the end of 2007, since when it has been falling without finding a new level yet. --Red King (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Euro

Template:Euro has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Euro-dollar

Template:Euro-dollar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does this make sense?

:With more than €610 billion in circulation as of December 2006 (equivalent to US$802 billion at the exchange rates at the time), the euro is the currency with the lowest combined value of cash in circulation in the world, having fallen behind the U.S. dollar.[3]

Really? This seems back to front - reading the reference:

The value of euro notes in circulation is this month likely to exceed the value of circulating dollar notes, according to calculations by the Financial Times. Converted at Wednesday’s exchange rates, the euro took the lead in October.

Has somethine got flipped at some point? Or is my understanding of macro-economic theory lacking. --Neo (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like vandalism. Clearly most currencies circulating in the world would have a combined value much lower than the Euro. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Please update this template more often

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Euro_exchange_rate_to_USD%2C_JPY%2C_and_GBP.png --Tubesship (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Euro/Archive_5&oldid=1136708475"