Template talk:Infobox currency/Archive 1

Archive 1

Slang terms

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

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

Other uses

This would be usefull for outdated non european currencies, but need a 'replced ?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

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

Vote on style of coin/banknote list

Please vote

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

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

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

new line to separate subunit main unit 10, 20, 50 cents, 1, 2 units 10, 20, 50 cents 1, 2 units break into 2 line only if all doesn't fit in one line (tricky, must use at least Firefox and IE to make sure) No new line. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC) New line not needed cept on really long ones I guess. Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC) New line – Zntrip 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC) New line Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC) New line only if it does not increase the total number of lines --Chochopk 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"and" or not to "and" 10, 20, 50 pence 10, 20, and 50 pence No and. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC) No and Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC) No and – Zntrip 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC) No and Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC) No and --Chochopk 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

use symbols or not always use when possible never use use only if the symbol is 1 character long Always use symbols. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Symbols so easy. Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Three character symbols (like Czechoslovak koruna) may produce longer result. --Chochopk 11:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Never use (use name at end of list) – Zntrip 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Always use when possible - clarify the meaning both in the introduction of the article and in the infobox and then use it all over the article. That's simple. (And can avoid some other problems, like the affair in the case of Slovak koruna) Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Always use when possible (name or symbol) – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Always use symbols when possible --Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

When the symbol is after the numerals, append the symbol after each denomination or the last 50 h, 1, 2, 5, 10 Sk 50 h, 1 Sk, 2 Sk, 5 Sk, 10 Sk after the last (and what about using semicolon to separate different units, like 5, 10, 20, 50 h; 1, 2, 5, 10 Kcš?) Timur lenk 16:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC) This question is for Timur. What about USD? --Chochopk 17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Well, it can either stay as it is now, or: Coins: 1, 5, 10, 25, 50 ¢; 1 dollar Banknotes: 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 dollars Large denomination is still legal tender: I'd rather include 500, 1000, 5000 and 10 000 dollars bills in the rarely used section then the 50 and 100 dollars. By the way, what is rare? If I go to change some dollars to a bank, I am sure that they could give me a 100 dollars bill, but I don't really think they would have a 2 dollars bill. I don't think a high denomination bill should be considered rarely used, if it is still issued and available.Timur lenk 22:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC) I can get $2 bills at any bank in the US *very* easily. Finding anything over $100 is damn near impossible since everything over that was recalled beginning in 1969.--chris.lawson 22:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Forgot to tell: change foreign money to dollars in a foreign country :-) I am sure it is easy to get $2 bills in the US since they are still issued. Timur lenk 22:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC) I guess I didn't formulate the question well. My apology. My question was, in the case of dollar, the symbol is in front of the numbers, then it looks weird to write "1, 5, ... , $100". Regarding what's "rare" and what's "frequent". I will write a detail explanation in the infobox instruction. But that is a rather different topic. If you want to discuss, please open a new thread. --Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC) After the last – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC) After the last only if the symbol is after the numerals --Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

large numbers 4 digit numbers 1,000 1 000 1000 1 000. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1,000 Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1000 - I wouldn't separate four digits. 3 zeros are not that confusing for the eyes. Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 1000 I concur with Timur lenk. --Chochopk 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 1000 – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC) I see "&-n-b-s-p-;" (without the dashes) when I edit, in between the one and the zeros for "1 000". Is tha a space or something? If so what's the difference? – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)   means "non-breaking space". It tells the browser to always put 1 and 000 on the same line. Otherwise you might get blah blah blah, 1 000 000 dinara --Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 5 digit numbers 50,000 50 000 50000 50 thousand 50K 5×104 50 000. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 50,000 Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 50 000 imagine 10,000, 20,000, 50,000, 100,000, 200,000 xyz. Isn't it better this way: 10 000, 20 000, 50 000, 100 000, 200 000 xyz. Another thing should be also considered: English Wikipedia is read by many non-native English speakers. In many European countries (like mine) comma is used as decimal separator (instead of dot), while using non-breaking space is universal (or at least everywhere understood). SI also suggests using space. K and M might be practical, but I don't think they fit into an encyclopedia. Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 50 000 – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 50 000 --Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 6 digit numbers 500,000 500 000 500 thousand 500K 5×105 500 000. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 500,000 Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 500 000 (see above) Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 500 000 – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 500 000 --Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 7 or more digit numbers 5,000,000 5 000 000 5 million 5M 5×106 --Chochopk 08:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 5 000 000. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 5,000,000 Joe I 09:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 5 000 000, but additional 5×106 exponential form is also useful for numbers higher than ten million (like in the case of the Hungarian pengő inflation series banknote box). The largest number written on a banknote is 500 000 000 000 (dinara) Timur lenk 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Writing out all digit would cause trouble for Krajina dinar and Republika Srpska dinar. --Chochopk 10:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC) I think anything >= 10 million should be in scientific notation (in the infobox only, of course). --Chochopk 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 5 000 000 – Zntrip 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 5 000 000 But use scientific notation for 107 or larger. --Chochopk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

CIA World Fact Book

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

Disambiguation Link Repair

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

Arabic and Hebrew

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

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

Monetary Policy Used

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

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

Adjustment

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

Hello? Anyone? Quadzilla99 22:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats what Template:Exchange Rate is for. Joe I 02:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What languages to include in the infobox?

The following debate was moved here from Talk:Euro.

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

I quote Chochopk's comment in edit summary:

Chochopk (Talk | contribs | block) (58,964 bytes) (revert Kaihsu's edit. Template talk:Infobox Currency says "Try to list the translation in all the languages of the "using_countries" attribute below." and Bulgaria is not a user, Montenegro is.)

This is unwieldy for this currency. I suggest "Ευρώ (in Greek); Евро (in Bulgarian)" Note the link to linguistic issues concerning the euro, which explains things in extensive detail. – Kaihsu 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

References

1) Spell the name of the currency the right way. The word "euro" is not capitalized in Greek.

2) No country that has Bulgarian as an official language (Bulgaria) uses the euro and therefore it should not be added to the infobox.

3) Regardless of the legal status of the use of the currency in a certain country, the official languages of any country using the currency are added. That means that Serbian is added because the euro is used in Montenegro and Kosovo. – Zntrip 05:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

One of the users of the euro currency is the European Union as an organisation, and all EU institutions use the euro as their official currency, regardless of which EU country they happen to be located in. The infobox would then need to show the name of the currency in all of the official languages of the EU (of which there are 27, including Bulgarian). (212.247.11.153 21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

If that is the case, then the EU must be added as a user too. There must be a symmetry between user and currency_name_in_local. I don't have a problem with that. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I don't think Latin Serbian is important. Serbia isn't actually even a member of the Eurozone. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 07:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you been following the discussion? Why do people keep talking about Serbia? The Serbian language doesn't necessarily imply Serbia. The whole reason is Montenegro. English doesn't always implies England either. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah, that was clumsy, but Montenegro (just as Kosovo) isn't part of the Eurozone, either. Anyway, it appears that the majority here are for the current section, so I won't edit it again for the meantime. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Serbian shouldn't be listed, its not in any sense an official name of the currency. In any case why not just list Euro, Evro, ευρώ, Евро without specifying languages and provide a link to the linguistic issues page? Seems neutral enough, I'm going to do that now. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rule has been standardized per the infobox page, however its inappropriate for the article as evidenced by the controversy. I'm satisfied with my proposed solution as it eliminates this problem, Evro and Евро cover Serbian along with Slovenian and Bulgarian. In the long term, however, the rule agreed on at the infobox page needs to change, examples such as USD are ridiculous at the moment. I once carried a 10-pound note in Switzerland. How does this differ from so called "actual usage"? Why aren't the four languages of Switzerland included at GBP? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland is not listed as an user of GBP in the infobox in GBP. If you think this rule in inappropriate as a whole, you're welcome to propose another one. I never say it has to be the way it is now. I've been open about this and spammed the same invitation to currency talk pages where the same concern may arise. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know it isn't, that's my point, how does so-called "actual usage" differ from my usage. Who defines "actual usage"? And why? I don't have a replacement rule, I am just pointing out some of the problems with the current one, mainly the arbitrary definition of "actual usage". +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, what about this?

      issuing authority       working language
euro -------------------> ECB -----------------> Greek, Bulgarian, ...

, and plus all the languages that appear on the physical currency (apply to Lebanese lira and Tunisian dinar). This will probably also solve the USD. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate explaining this, but I’ll say it again.

1) The infobox contains the “local languages” of the currency.

2) A “local language” is defined as the one printed on the physical currency or spoken as an official language in a country where the currency is legal tender.

There is no controversy concerning this and the most neural approach is to follow set guidelines. The argument of WP:IAR is baseless because you have made the article more ambiguous by deviating from the format of other currency articles. Also you made no consideration to follow foreign grammatical rules in the infobox. You would have known to do this if you read Template talk:Infobox Currency and the needless capitalization just reinforces my suspicion that you didn’t even bother reading the talk page. Next time to some research and listen to others before making edits. – Zntrip 05:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Zntrip, are you defending the existing rule, or the concept of a consistent rule (well I guess the 1st one implies the 2nd)? What do you think about the new proposal I just made? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your charming attacks, you make me blush. I followed linguistic conventions, Greek wasn't capitalised. I don't see how IAR isn't relevant, read the article. I made it more ambiguous rather then compressing a very long page to a sentence. And please remain civil, accusations solve nothing. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The original intent is to list national or pseudo national entities where this currency is a legal tender. If it is legal that two parties agree to trade on a certain currency, that's not enough to have the status of legal tender. That is the user field. Perhaps this is not spelled out in the style guide. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Chochopk, I totally support the existing rule, which I do think is consistent. Is there anything that I said that isn't outlined already. – Zntrip 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The infobox was fine they way it was with Slovenian and Serbian. If you read the infobox talk page you would understand this... so what is the problem? – Zntrip 21:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That everyone disagrees. And why the double post? I quite like Chochopk's proposal, it would at least prevent the ridiculous situation at USD and others like it. Stefan2's argument is very convincing, I agree with those points. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The proposition that Chochopk made would encompass languages of countries that don’t use the currency, which is more ridiculous than what we have already. The euro page would have “euro” written in Maltese, Latvian, Bulgarian, Turkish, etc. I still think we should stick to the language on the currency and the official languages of the countries that use the currency. – Zntrip 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on second thought, my proposed rule would include Maltese, Latvian, etc. The existing rule does seem better. This question is to Hexagon1, Stefan2, and Wakuran. What would you like to see in the infoboxes of the euro, the USD, the Indian rupee, and South African rand, and the Soviet ruble. And if you don't mind, also add the explanation of your choice. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this, the languages included should be all the official languages of the issuing body and the languages on the notes or coins, excluding any of the languages that is only used in nations that don't have the currency in ANY sort of official circulation (eg. the Sweden/Finland agreements above would qualify both nations for such circulation), unless there is no such 'using' country, in which case all the official languages and languages appearing on notes are listed. Just a proposal, analyse to shreds. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding your proposal. Let me try to reconstruct

• Languages of the issuing body
• Plus, additional ones that appear on the physical currency
• Remove ???
• Unless ???

It would be easier if you use the word "plus" and "remove" and use positive condition (like if blah). Could you avoid using condition with the word "unless"? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe like this:

• Show the name in all languages printed on the actual notes and/or coins. For EUR, only "euro" and "ευρω" are printed. For USD, that would mean "dollar" (or "US dollar"). For SUR, that would mean a long list of names.
• Show all official names as defined by the issuing agency (e.g. the ECB). For EUR, that would mean only "euro" and "ευρω" (with no accent above the "omega"). For USD, that would mean "dollar" (or "US dollar"). For SUR, that would probably mean the same long list of names. (Stefan2 12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

But what about the adjective? The Canadian dollar would be "dollar" in English and in French. Are you suggesting removing the national adjective? That's a lot of changes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean to remove the adjective. I was only talking about what languages to mention. (Stefan2 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

• The Omega in “ευρώ” always has an accent. In Greek, accents are omitted when a word is written in all capital letters. I just wanted to clear that up. The way it currently appears in the infobox is correct.

I seem to understand that the EU and/or ECB decided that the only correct Greek spelling is without an accent. Then no one follows that decision (with the main argument being that it doesn't follow standard Greek spelling rules), but that's a different thing. (Stefan2 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

• So Hexagon1, what you are purposing would only eliminate the official languages of countries that have adopted a currency unilaterally? You do understand that if this were implemented the euro infobox would have seven spellings? “Euro” would be written in Greek, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Slovenian (which is the same as Latin Serbian), Maltese, and Bulgarian (which is the same as Cyrillic Serbian). Why have “euro” written in languages of countries that don’t even use the currency? – Zntrip 22:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was misunderstood, so I doodled a flow chart to run a language through, and hopefully simplify my proposal: [2]. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hexagon1, I find this diagram overly complex. It seems that it is made in this way to fit some desired result. What is so bad about the (existing) "actual user" rule? Is it because you don't want to see Serbian? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing against Serbian (dobro došli!), I'm myself Slavic, but I find it out of place in an article on the Euro. The present rule irritates me, "actual user" is vague, as shown above by Stefan2. I made my chart as an attempt to simplify my proposal, but I guess I'll have to put it mathematically: (official languages of issuing body + languages on the note) - languages only used in nations that don't use the currency in ANY (no de jure/de facto use) way = languages included. The exception would be where none of the countries that use the official languages or those appearing on the note are using the currency, in which case they'd be all listed (regardless of the third "operation" in my equation above). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I was discussing it, I specifically stated my problem with 'actual user' and my irritation with the present rule. I wasn't talking about just the framework of the Euro but of all currencies. I've moved the debate to here, so the discussion gets wider consensus. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the discussion here. I still don't know why you find the current rule irritating. Previously, you said because it's vague. And I tried to explain why I don't find it vague. Do you agree? disagree? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actual use could refer to any number of things, official circulation, official (but not actual) use, de facto use, de facto use in one specific region, official (but not actual) use in one region, or official (but not actual) and de-facto cross-border monetary arrangements as mentioned above. OR maybe coins of one currency and notes of another are used. There is a plethora of "actual usages". I am just pointing out the flaws of actual usage, the main issue in question is the link between 'actual usage' and the names of the currency in different languages. I'm proposing a solution independent of actual usage. Sorry if I've been vague before. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You have given good points here. This is the ambiguity of the using_countries. There could be a number of interpretations, as you pointed out. Enumeration of using_countries currently is a qualitative process. There are no codified rules for this. But there is one for currency_name_in_local. It's based off the result of using_countries.

At this point, there seems to be little dispute about the using_countries, for euro, for the USD, or for other "problematic" currencies. So if the result of using_countries is something most editors agree on, then there should be no ambiguity deriving currency_name_in_local off from using_countries. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you refer to the rule of deriving currency_name_in_local from using_countries, and take it as a given, but that's exactly what I am opposing. I haven't come up with a new rule for using_countries, but one for currency_name_in_local, which aims to reduce its dependence on the ambiguous using_countries and prevent the situation at Euro. We should consider ourselves lucky no nationalists from the countries in question have come and started a huge edit war over this, due to the ambiguousness of the rule from which currency_name_in_local is derived. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What you propose is to bypass using_countries. But it comes with a price of over complex rule. Why not make using_countries unambiguous first, then currency_name_in_local would automatically become unambiguous. What about the thing Wakuran proposed below?

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

I don't know, I still think it is less ambiguous the way it is. – Zntrip 19:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If there were such attribute (unofficially_using_countries), how would you partition the users of the USD, the euro, and some others. Right now, the USD lists

• the United States, the British Indian Ocean Territory,[1] the British Virgin Islands, Cambodia, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Panama, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the insular areas of the United States

Euro:

• Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Kosovo, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Vatican City

South African rand:

• Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland

Singapore and Brunei dollar

• Both legal in both countries (I suppose)

Belgian and Lux franc

• Both legal in both countries

I'm just worried that this separation may cause more controversy and revert war. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wakuran's proposal, and I don't think there's any abiguity, official would be where the issuing body has intended the currency to be issued, so Euro would be official in EU, Monaco, Vatican and San Marino, but unofficial Kosovo, Andorra and Montenegro, as an example. (distinction between bilateral and unilateral adoption) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you work out the other currencies and give some explanation why and why your partition won't be controversy? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And you don't do this yourself because.. ? As I said, bilaterally adopted is official, unilaterally is unofficial. This is an extremely rudimentary and indisputable definition. And I don't see any controversy, you're the one that has an issue with this, please give an example of some possible controversy. If anyone is unhappy with this rule I will gladly hear their proposal. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

My appologies then, however would not requiring sources be beneficial? It would ensure accuracy to say the least, and probably prevent disputes rather then prevent them. I'm not sure of the other currencies, as I lack a strong background in currencies. I can't check it now as I am on severely limited net, I'll try to check it later. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 22:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my late reply. Busy in real life. I can make the separation of official and unofficial user. Here is the specification:

• using_countries still required. If unofficially_using_countries is present, then using_countries is shown as "official user(s)", otherwise, simply "user(s)".
• unofficially_using_countries (new), optional. If exists, it is shown as "unofficial user(s)".
• The rule of currency_name_in_local will be unchanged because using_countries would become official users only when unofficially_using_countries is present.

It will be up to the domain expert (not me) to decide who's official and who's not. I will remain busy in the coming days. Remind me if I don't do so for too long. And regarding Stefan2's question below, I believe that the answer is we should include Faroese and Greenlandic because DKK is officially used there. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I would say no. It's only for countries that currently use it. Are you trying to make a point or something, because this is a little off topic? – Zntrip 01:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New parameter unofficial_users added. Documentation slightly updated. Under the current rule, only Greek is listed. Can we consider this issue resolved? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we can. Finally this 4269-word long dispute brought to closure! Thanks Chochopk. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what about Slovenian? – Zntrip 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. This is the power of open encyclopedia. Editors make mistakes and others catch them. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Image Sizes

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

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

Pictures to use

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

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

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

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

Inflation

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

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

Issuing vs Using countries

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

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

Page Name

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

Policy on Rare Designation

Every ATM in the 3rd world that I have used dispenses $100 bills, but never $2 or $50 bills. Making it "rare" on this page as POLICY is incorrect, it relects a bias to U.S. practices, and given that over 50% (55% - 70% as estimated by the U.S. Federal Reserve) of U.S. currency circulates overseas, and is regarded as a reserve currency, makes U.S. ATM practices irrevelant as a determination as to rarity. In fact, given that the majority of money circulates outside the U.S. makes the use of the currency outside the U.S. as the determining factor. Dobbs (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again - in the hands of foreigners is NOT a correct determination for the world reserve currency (currently the U.S. dollar) as a majority of the currency circulates outside of the U.S. In fact, several entire countries utilize U.S. currency as their native currency, or peg their currency to it. So how do you determine "foreigner" in that case?!?! And, BTW - tax evasion (in other "less enlightened" countries than the U.S. that have governments that seize money for citizens / governments that seize from citizens (your pick - call them "tax evaders" or "corrupt officials", depends on your point of view)) may be the morally correct thing to do. Also, casinos and drug dealers ARE (regardless if you LIKE it or not) LARGE users of currency - period. Their legality, criminality, or morality have NO bearing on the currency in and of itself. Just because users of a currency may not be "above board" in any of the senses I mentioned above does not reflect on the currency as an instrument. Dobbs (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I just realized a discussion is taking place here. Perhaps Talk:United States dollar is a better place? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy regarding rare was referenced in the discussion over in Talk:United States dollar. As I think the $100 in not rare, I think either United States Dollar needs to be changed, or the policy needs to be changed. I especially find it wrong that currency holdings in the hands of 'foreigners' or 'criminals' is not considered for the purposes of deciding rarity. I think that is completely aribritary and bad policy. I really don't want to get into an edit war over this - but every time I make a change, it is reverted without comment which is really, really pissing me off. Dobbs (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Issuing banks

There is a need for an additional parameter to allow for countries where multiple private banks are licenced to issue their own money. Although this is rare, two major currencies are covered by this arrangement, the pound sterling and the Hong Kong dollar. A banknote series may have a central bank, a number of issuing banks and a printer, which are all different. For example, a sterling note will have the Bank of England as its central bank, it may be issued by, say, the Royal Bank of Scotland, but the printer is De la Rue.

I think this template would benefit from the addition of an issuing_banks section to allow for this. Can anyone add this to the template? --Cnbrb (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Stuffed

You people messing around are stuffing the template. Can you fix it please. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed a problem with the image code and updated the test cases to show a side-by-side comparison with the old and new code. Unless there are any constructive objections I'll get this migrated again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Chris, I will see how it looks and get back. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is working fine old chap. Good work. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This was reverted again, but the user didn't bother leaving a comment to say what was up. I've restored the most recent version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Small glitch

I noticed this problem at http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Pound_sterling&oldid=334351334 (I have given a version-specific URL in case the article later changes and the problem is no longer apparent).

In edit preview mode, the collapsible list of British Territories in the currency infobox fails to display (I don't just mean it's collapsed, I mean nothing is displayed, not even the heading or the "show" link). The list displays fine in normal view when I'm reading the article. Exactly the same collapsible list displays fine in preview mode when taken out of the infobox, so I imagine it's some interaction between the two. I'm using IE 8. 86.150.102.21 (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC).

infobox

I created a new version based on {{infobox}}. if you check the testcases, you will see the presentation is nearly identical. I added some indentation for sublabels, but otherwise it should look nearly the same. if there are no objections, I will update this in the next few days. Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

now updated. Frietjes (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Indentation of sublabels

An IP posted on my talk page some questions regarding the format of the infobox. the current point of discussion is the indentation of the sublabels (e.g., website for the issuing authority). the use of ensp to indent the sublabels makes the labels look 'ragged', which is by design, since otherwise one would not know which sublabels belong to which labels. however, there are of course alternatives. I have presented one such alternative, which is to use bullets, in the sandbox. you can view the difference between the current and proposed change in the testcases. comments? alternatives? Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As my opinion, i prefer previous(before using infobox) version, but if i have to choice one of the two, i like "alternatives"(including bullets). --112.170.228.139 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Cryptocurrencies

At the moment adding a cryptocurrency is not really supported. It would be practical to have additional fields... though the template editing is over my head. Could somebody look into it please? Specifically I'm editing Nxt at the moment (see Draft:NXT if the former is still red). The following would be real handy:

• Coin supply
• Official Website (I sued issuing_authority_website, but that's not quite correct)
• Software License
• Transaction times

I'm sure there is more - especially Bitcoin would need mining and such. -Thomas (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, I think though it may be better to create a new template rather than try to adapt this one. I will look into doing this. Greenman (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If 1

@Frietjes: I saw this edit. Shouldn't {{#if:1 always be true? --Obsuser (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Obsuser, see the footnotes in the first example in the testcases. without something there, lists in the footnotes won't work. the easiest way to fix it is to wrap the input inside {{#if:1| }}. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Frequency of notes/coins

Can someone explain what encyclopedic value "frequency of notes" and "frequency of coins" adds to the infobox? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 14:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Currencies often have denominations that are technically legal tender but are not commonly seen in day to day use. For example, the United States two-dollar bill, the 500 euro note, or the 1000 Swedish krona bill. There is value in knowing this information at glance. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of currency exchange rate

Should the exchange rate of a currency relative to the US dollar be included in the infobox taking into consideration that rates change daily by large and miniscule amounts Tech'n'Country123 (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

violations of MOS:FONTSIZE

All the inline notes parameters (and a few others) in this template violate MOS:FONTSIZE because they end up rendering their text too small (they're using <small> in an infobox, which already renders text at a smaller size). I thought about BOLDly fixing this but wanted to discuss it first. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you propose? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing all the <small> tags would be simplest. There are just the 12 instances. Maybe convert the language notes to actual notes or tool tips or something other than things that display big chunks of text in the infobox. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done User:Joeyconnick. -DePiep (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DePiep! —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Containing external links

I notice that the template has parameters for showing External links, and I wonder whether that is usually good practice.

An example of where these are used is in Croatian kuna, where the Issuance subsection shows the websites for 3 entities, as in:

Central bank Croatian National Bank

Website [www.hnb.hr]

Printer Giesecke & Devrient

Website [www.gi-de.com]

Mint Croatian Monetary Institute

Website [www.hnz.hr]

This seems odd to me, as each of the 3 entities already shows their own article. So why are their websites shown? The reader has only to click on an entity's article, and surely that's where one would expect to find the website?

It seems that these websites - where (usually?) the entity has its own article - are superfluous, causing clutter, and serving only the purpose of promoting the Bank / Printer / Mint. Some of these are profit-making firms, so why do we give them free (& unnecessary) extra advertising?

Thoughts welcome. Trafford09 (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree this is undesired. WP:INFOBOX says that an infobox should give an overview of the article itself, not adding new information. The links provided in the kuna example should be in the article body (if at all), and probably only as a source reference. Then, respecting WP:NOTLINKFARM probablly means that only the issuing institute (central bank) is worth mentioning.

As illustration on how to handle external links in infoboxes: United Nations only has its official website mentionend.

I propose to remove *all* EL's from this infobox. -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, personally, of course I'm v. pleased by your arguments & aims, and would support them. I notice that the template is under the Portal:Numismatics umbrella. I've not worked on that portal; have you? I just wondered whether we're supposed to seek their support too?

I think that this template's linked to by (used in?) 251 to 499 articles, per this, or 450 articles per this. I dare say there's an argument for treading carefully? I'm no expert on etiquette. Trafford09 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This TDmer listing is most precise on usage in mainspace: 409 (the link is mentioned in template documentation see #TemplateData, Monthly error report).

I've put a notice at the Portal talk and at the WikiProject (which is a bit more active): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Template:Infobox_currency. Not just politeness, better to have involved people come here to have the best arguments. We'll have to wait a few days for those people.

Parameters involved: |issuing_authority_website=|printer_website=|mint_website=. The issuer website (central bank) has to go too (could be a source ref website in article though). -DePiep (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Change “exponent” → “minor units”

From the discussion Talk:ISO 4217/Archives/2020#Exponent it emerged that the term “exponent” is not an official term from ISO 4217, and when we became aware (in subsection Talk:ISO 4217#“Exponent” in Infobox currency) that the term persists in this infobox, Misha Wolf and Gordon P. Hemsley suggested to move the discussion here. For the article ISO 4217, it was agreed to use “minor units” instead. Can the same change be done in this template, too? (Note that in that discussion, the alternative term “currency subunit” was suggested by Misha, but that was refuted by Gordon in section Talk:ISO 4217/Archives/2020#Currency subunit and the USD.) ◅ Sebastian 14:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. New parameter: |minor_units=, replaces |iso_exponent=. Both can be used, but iso_exponent is 'deprecated'. Label changed to "Minor units". Note that it still only shows when |iso_code= is present. -DePiep (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: |iso_exponent= is used in 60 articles [3] ("0" 8x, "2" 51x, "4" 1x). Shouldn't these inputs be changed? SebastianHelm -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC) (pingfix -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC))

Thanks for the quick action. I didn't suggest to also change the parameter name, which is not visible to the reader, but it allows for more consistency. Since that's what you did, it would make sense to update the “inputs”, which would allow us to deprecate the old name. For such cases, I used to apply Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, but that was long ago. ◅ Sebastian 15:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I find it editor-friendly to have parameter name reflect the labeltext. — DePiep 16:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Yes, it is editor-friendly in the long run. In the short run, editors will have to get used to a new name, which some may consider less friendly to them. But that's just why I didn't suggest it; as for me, I'm happy with the change. ◅ Sebastian 16:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, should it remain under the ISO-header? Or is it a more generic property of the currency? — DePiep 16:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

As far as I understood the discussion, there was consensus it is generic. That led to Misha Wolf considering it altogether redundant (“I think that the best option is to not display this field in the infobox.”). That should, however, be discussed in another section. ◅ Sebastian 16:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And what would be the new text? Can it be derived from values (0, 2, or 4)? (If so, I can run AWB for this) -DePiep (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Good question; it hadn't occurred to me (or to anyone else in the discussion, as far as I can see) that now, with the plural followed by a number, the number can be misread to mean the number of minor currencies. We had simply assumed it could stay as is. Hmm, maybe it's better to leave the parameter out, after all, as Misha suggested. ◅ Sebastian 16:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll wait for instructions :-) i.e, what it should show and what input options you need. I am not familiar with the topic at all. -DePiep (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! BTW, I'm no numismatics aficionado, either. This was just an inconsistency I stumbled upon, so I brought it up at Talk:ISO 4217/Archives/2020#Exponent. I'll wait for their input just like you. ◅ Sebastian 17:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looping me in. I will respond but am awaiting a grocery delivery right now so don't want to get involved in this important discussion just now. :) Misha Wolf (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted my today's changes to the infobox. First this discussion has to conclude, my misunderstanding. -DePiep (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I support such a change to the template but consider that this field should be presented as containing a value drawn from ISO 4217 and should precisely match the ISO 4217 usage (hence "Minor unit", not "Minor units") and that each infobox occurrence should link to ISO_4217#Minor_units_of_currency so that readers can quickly discover what this field means. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Coming in from the outside: what does "Minor unit: 2" even mean? I have read the link, still unclear. So: the definition of minor unit (or exponent) is unclear, and then the meaning of the number (0, 2, 4 I have met). I don't even get this for US$. For an infobox, this is relevant. -DePiep (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

In that case we need to improve the clarity of section ISO_4217#Minor_units_of_currency. The ISO 4217 "Minor unit" field specifies the ratio between the value of a currency and the value of its minor unit, using powers of 10. For example, "2" indicates that the ratio between the value of the currency and the value of its minor unit is 100:1, "3" indicates that the ratio is "1000:1", and so on. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

So 'minor' currency unit has not to do with coin values (just learned). It is about like "1$ and 1000$ are comonly used units in international finance trade" or so. In this case, the infobox label needs more ;-) -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Minor units are often represented in manual transactions by coins but that is not relevant when, for example, making a purchase online. The airline ticket shown at the top of page ISO 4217 contains prices such as "EUR 99.69". If one happens to know that the ISO 4217 "Minor unit" value for EUR is "2", then one can tell that "EUR 99.69" represents 99 euros plus 69 euro minor units. ISO 4217 does not tell us the name of the Minor unit (in this case "euro cent"). Misha Wolf (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

OK. I leave this page. Ping me if I can help. -DePiep (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Just "decimals" then except when using old UK s/d/p or 1/12 systems etc. -DePiep (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The Mauritanian ouguiya and the Malagasy ariary each have a ratio of 5:1 between the value of the currency and the value of its minor unit. Misha Wolf (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Afterthought: maybe "fraction used" is the wording we are looking for (to me it is clearest). Data can be 0.01, 0.20 etc. -DePiep (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Red link fix

Infoboxes really should not have red links, especially in the left column where they are bolded. In some articles like German mark (1871) and Old Taiwan dollar, Banknotes and Coins were redlinked when corresponding articles are not given in the |banknote_article= and |coin_article= parameters and there are no default articles, such as Banknotes of the German mark. This has been fixed with the {{#ifexist:}} function. If the default articles exist, then they will appear as blue links; however, if they don't exist, then "Banknotes" and "Coins" will just be in bold and unlinked. If there are any objections we can discuss them here. Thank you for your consideration! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 19:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth: Red links are meant to encourage the creation of missing pages; their inclusion was intentional. On what basis are you asserting that infoboxes "should" not have red links? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Good question, thank you for asking, Gordon P. Hemsley! As you know, an infobox is primarily used to present a subset/summary of information about the article's subject. As a secondary function there are often links to associated articles in them, which makes an infobox a type of navbox, much like a sidebar template. As such, I've always considered the lines in the guideline at WP:Red link to apply: "Editors who add red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or the links may be removed from the template." Are you or another editor you know working on articles to turn those red links into blue links? If so, then my "ifexist" edit can be easily reverted. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 05:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth: I disagree with your assessment that an infobox is a type of navbox and I see no evidence that consensus supports it. Wikipedia:Navigation template and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes are distinct pages which do not mention any mutual application between the two. The reason that WP:REDNOT contains the line you quote is because the primary purpose of a navbox is to help the reader find related articles; thus, it makes sense not to have an excessive number of links to articles that don't exist. But that is not the case with infoboxes: their primary purpose is to capture discrete data about (the subject of) an article, and links to specific expansion articles are part of that discrete data. Note also that, even if we were to accept that an infobox is a type of navbox, red links are common and accepted for certain formulaic navboxes like those generated by {{Americas topic}} (see, e.g., Time in the United States for a use), and I would argue that that would apply here as well. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 14:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The evidence that consensus supports only blue links in infoboxes may be somewhat implicit due to the fact that this one, Infobox currency, is the first infobox I've seen in many years that had red links in it in at least two articles. Another indication would be the references to the {{navbox}} and {{sidebar}} templates on the Template:Infobox documentation page, which indicates that they are associated with infoboxes. Add to that the fact that I've never read anywhere in any policy, guideline, help page, essay or any other project page any words that would support letting red links exist in infoboxes with the sole exception of the sentence I quoted from WP:Red link above. So I ask again, are you or another editor you know actively working to create articles that will turn those red links into blue links? If so, that would justify our letting the red links stand inside those currency infoboxes long enough for them to blossom into blue links. I think the key thought here should be that red links are only helpful to those editors who are inclined to turn them into articles; red links are never helpful to general readers, who have little or no intention of doing anything else except reading Wikipedia. Remember there are far more readers of Wikipedia than there are active editors. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 15:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

unit= option needed

In almost all cases worldwide, the currency name and the unit name are the same, there are two major exceptions: renmimbi (China) and sterling (UK). At present, the only way to get their respective unit name (yuan, pound) into the infobox is to (mis-)use the superunit= argument with a trivial ratio of 1:1. The effect is amateurish. Would a competent template editor add a unit= argument, please? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

On further thoughts, it is actually not that unusual. The unit name of (for example) the Australian dollar is just 'dollar'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I concur with this request.

I believe it ought to say "main unit", with no superfluous field for ratios.

And I quite agree, it is far from unusual. Most currencies do not have names as such and are identified by the name of their main unit with a disambiguating demonym, although the actual unit only rarely includes the demonym as part of its official name on banknotes or coins, an even more august example being the United States dollar. Some currencies do include the demonym as part of the official unit name, such as the Turkish lira, whose banknotes give their denomination as (for instance) "Yüz Türk lirası".

I would also like to add to that a field for a non-ISO abbreviation may also be efficacious. As JMF has correctly pointed out on a number of occasions, a "symbol" is distinct from an "abbreviation". A symbol being a character specifically designed for the purpose (eg. ₳, ฿, ₵, ¢, ₡, $, ₯,,֏, €, ƒ, ₲, ₭, ₾, £, ₺, ℳ, ₦, ₱, ₽, ₹, ₪, ₸, ₮, ₩, ¥) while an abbreviation is an initialism or a contraction using standard QWERTY characters (eg. RMB, stg, Esc, fl etc). TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

My proposal is that parameters ought to be added for main_unit_name and abbreviation, with the "symbol" parameter reserved exclusively for symbols with a unique Unicode codepoint.

Here are some examples of how it would work:

currency_name = Renminbi

main_unit_name = yuan

abbreviation = RMB

symbol = ¥

currency_name = Sterling

main_unit_name = pound

abbreviation = stg

symbol = £

currency_name = United States dollar

main_unit_name = dollar

abbreviation = US$

symbol = $

currency_name = Indian rupee

main_unit_name = rupee

abbreviation = Rs

symbol = ₹

currency_name = Aruban florin

main_unit_name = florin

abbreviation = Afl

symbol = ƒ

This would be especially welcome for currencies that do not use a symbol, just abbreviations:

currency_name = Egyptian pound

main_unit_name = pound

abbreviation = LE

symbol = none

TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

All that makes sense to me and I support this proposal. Now all we need is someone skilled enough to be confident of changing safely a template that affects hundreds of articles. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• ONe more question: what with local Unit name (thnk language, script)? We must expect English and local name, not necessarily the local currency name! -DePiep (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Sandboxing underway

I have started sandboxing these changes (see Template:Infobox currency/sandbox). I will request expert review before putting live. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Sort of done but "Unit name" and "Abbreviation" are showing whether used or not. Also, I can't see how to test it. Will ask. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Having painfully hit the wall of my capabilities, at my request DePiep has very kindly volunteered to show me how it is done. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Background: Talk:Pound sterling § Request for comment

Anomalies that need to be resolved

• Where should the abbreviation be shown? For sterling and Renmibi, the obvious place is after currency_name_in_local. Will that look odd for currencies that don't distinguish between the primary unit name and the currency name? (like USD)
• At present, the order of display is very odd: the currency symbol shown in the Sub-unit section, just to simplify display of the subunit symbol. And the nickname is shown there too, as if it is a nickname for the subunit! So that needs to be resolved into (e.g., for sterling)
  •    Denomination
  • Unit: Pound
  • Symbol: £
  • Nickname: quid†
  • Subunit name: penny
  • Subunit symbol: p
  • Subunit nickname: copper†

†   Personally I would discard these. Nicknames change over the years and are best handled in body text. I would also drop plurals as more clutter. What is the plural of "Lira"? Lire (Italian grammar)? Liras (English grammar)? Lira (Turkish grammar)? Put it in body text.

Anything else while the juggernaut is over the maintenance pit? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Symbol Can we declare?enforce that only symbols encoded in Unicode are valid? (exept Cifrão of course). That it is the symbol routinely used locally => $ in Canada and Australia etc, not Can$ (or even worse, C$) nor A$.
  • If I read your "to do" list correctly, DePiep, were you really thinking of putting Symbol:    U+00A3 £ POUND SIGN? Because if so, I don't agree. Belongs in body text. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Postponed, first implement |unit, abbr= correctly for all articles. -DePiep (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Implementation

@John Maynard Friedman and TheCurrencyGuy: Triggered by 𝕁𝕄𝔽 :-) , I have explored the Infobox wrt these changes. (there are loads of other improvements, but I will address these lateer).

todo 1: unit. Allow "Unit" data point (row), eg "pound" for pound sterling. For now, I propose it to be top row below "Denomination" header. Label: "Unit" (unlinked, must be selfexplaining). Parameter: |unit= (because: there is only one unit; all others are super/sub. BTW it occurs to me that the parameter names here are impractically and editor-unfriendly long for no reason: no need to be a full documentation description ;-) ). Default value: Pagename. Note: when introduced, all pages need a check, pagename is not automatically right. (But: no harm done when it shows the Unit=pagename, for a few days).

todo 2: abbr: parameter |unit_abbr=, to be shown right below the Unit. No data=no show (default), not crucial.

Also: minor fixes. Link Denominations; See {{Infobox currency/testcases}} (background: {{Infobox currency/sandbox}} diff).

Proposal now: if you can agree with these two & their effect, we can make the change & edit the infoboxes. -DePiep (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Todo 1: Unit I agree. (This may be a work-in-progress issue but... At the euro example which, like every other current use, does not have a unit=, Unit Infobox currency/testcases is being displayed instead of skipped.)

Todo 2: Abbreviation It should be currency_abbr, not unit_abbr. (There may well be a case for a unit_abbr too? Like fl. for Dutch Guilder (but is that a currency abbreviation or a unit abbreviation?)

FYI, I've just done the pound sterling at the test cases page. Only issue is the missing currency-abbr. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Todo 1: Unit Yes it says "Infobox currency/testcases" because that is the default {{PAGENAME}}. In article Foobistan Bar the unit name would say "Unit: Foobistan Bar" by default. Someone can edit it into |unit=Bar, which will show OK then. OR is there a better way to introduce this? (IMO, some value must show for the Unit). Any better idea than default to pagename?

Todo 2: Abbreviation OK, changed to |abbr=. (Of course, in currency-IB a prefix 'currency_' is not needed). Question: what should its position in the box be? More close to the currency name? But better not as a title (it is not that important). -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Todo 1: Unit sorry but no, that is definitely wrong, for two reasons. (a) If the currency name is e.g. "US Dollar", the unit is definitely not also "US Dollar", it is just "dollar". (b) Our changes should have little (ideally no) impact on existing usages. That way minimises the "blowback" from people who don't like sudden changes and stir up a storm. ANI references, well you know how it goes. So if unit_name= is not stated, the line should not be displayed. Let it appear organically as and when the host articles are updated – manually.

Todo 2: Abbreviation Ok, I agree. (Again, this line should not be displayed unless and until positively used with relevant info.) As for its position, I already identified that as an issue but still haven't come up with a good solution. The most logical place for it is with the ISO code but the purists won't like it. The only other place I can think of is after native_name_in_local but that gives it a prominence and implied importance that it doesn't merit. So IMO it has to be in the ISO box with line title "Non-ISO abbreviation". Anyone got a better idea? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I am such a 'purist': since the abbr is about the currency not the unit, it should be near the title. Will make it show in row "local name" DePiep (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

So: to add, now in sandbox: |unit=, |abbr=. -DePiep (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Questions: (Q1) What to show for "Unit" when no input? <Blank> (=no row) or <Pagename>? (Q2) Where to positioon abbreviation (being an abbr for the currency not the unit)? -DePiep (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Detailed responses immediately above but in summary: Q1 => "no row"; Q2 => ISO box (least worst option). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Now sandbox has:

(1) "Unit" now separate header (unit, symbol, nickname, plural). Section "Denominations" for super/subs.

(2) "abbr" now added to subtitle ="local_name (abbr)". See demo here.

No need to put data in wrong place (abbr not under ISO etc).

Pilot = sterling; no other edge cases in view => we can go. -DePiep (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I've added USD to the test cases to verify we won't provoke a firestorm of disapproval from the largest audience for having made a silly mistake. Straight replacement of the template underneath ("in-flight engine change") looks ok, but better when the new arguments are invoked.

The only thing that worries me is that we've done it all between you and me (though I predict with confidence that TCG will be happy) but we've had no neutral "peer review". Can you invite someone to be devil's advocate before we go live? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Y then. No, no peer review nbeeded: together we understand the issue, and anyway no harm is done with the change. Prepare to check all 500 articles :-) Any way to work systematically? Use the tracking category? (I canm program that) -DePiep (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, best to use a programmed tracking category, please, as it will take a little more that 5 minutes to amend all that lot. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hold the front page!!! (well, ok, bottom right corner of the business page after "investment opportunities"). I've just done a test case of pre-decimal sterling and we no longer have a line to introduce sub-unit plurals. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's test #£sd I guess. What line does it need? What line disappeared? I don't see (good edge case) DePiep (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've put the plural right below unit. (Nickname to be above symbol too?). -DePiep (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: True, but you moved the world plural (correctly) to be with Unit but that is no longer enough since we now have plurals in two places: the Unit plural [pound/pounds] and the subunit plurals [penny/pence]. In the £sd example, it needs an intro line between 1⁄1⁄240   Penny and Shilling   Shillings.

We've also lost anything to introduce sub-unit abbreviations

I don't know if this will fit everywhere and what happens when there is no plural or "it depends" plural but how about:

Subunit[s]
Ratio   Name   Plural   Abbr.
1⁄12   Shilling  Shillings   s., /-
1⁄240   Penny   Pence   d

Of course writing a variable size, content dependent, table should be a trivial exercise for you

Yes, nickname in the Unit box. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I see. I prefer solution (will build in a minute, see tests): when any sub/super-plural is present, the word appears in bold as title (but no datavalue, as that is the unit "pounds" so stays elsewhere). Same for s/s-symbols. The table you mention is a postponed thing (and deerly needed indeed; the super/subs are a horror). But not now. I want unit & abbr live asap. DePiep (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Parameter name changed into |name_abbr=, as it pertains to name_currency and name_local. -DePiep (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"S/s" should read "S/u". "name_abbr" is wise, it may still turn out that we need "su1_abbr" etc. (I was joking about the dynamic table, btw, I really didn't think you could do that at all, never mind in a few minutes. But it often useful to give an ideal target since today's impossible is often tomorrows difficult and just obvious the day after. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

s/s was just a working thing ;-) -- now gone. I think for the super/subs we can go as tested. To be redesigned later. DePiep (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Tracking & checking changes

• How to track?

Tracking system: The dedicated, new subcategory is: Category:Pages using Infobox currency to check (30).

A. Add |check= to all 500 (together with blank |unit, name_abbr=; using WP:AWB). Cat all IB's that have this param (blank). When checked/edited manually, remove this param.

B. Add |check=0/F, set manually Add to |check=1/T when visited

C. Add |unit, name_abbr= to all 500. Cat all with blank |unit, name_abbr=.

D. cat with absent |unit, name_abbr=.

Note: for non-complicated edits, I can do AWB. (eg, with subunit "1/1").

Note 2: more changes to come, so wil be reused

What you think? -DePiep (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

E. No prior edits in the 500. Template does Cat all pages without any of these: |unit, name_abbr, checked= (irrespective of their input value). That is: when |unit, name_abbr= is used (after manual, smart edit), de-cat; when new parameters are not needed, add a blank |checked= to de-cat. (Aditionally: one could add |checked=XYZ to note: revisit later for other issues like sub-units). ~-DePiep (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

F. lol: adding |unit= and/or |name_abbr=, blank or with value, as checking edit. This will de-cat the article. (No |checked= needed!). -DePiep (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have never been involved in an exercise like that, so my opinion is uniformed by experience and so worthless. Look elsewhere, I'm afraid. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  OK. I could make a subpage with those 500 articles listed, as a working list, if that helps you. I myself will only do the most obvious changes, not the subtle ones. DePiep (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Documenting the new features

We may as well get started on the documentation.

Attribute	Live currency	Dead currency	Must use with	Mutually exclusive with	Default value	Example / Style
currency_name	Optional	Optional			Article title	New Zealand dollar
name_abbr	Optional, if provided must be RS citable	Optional				$NZ
unit	Advised	Advised				dollar
symbol	Optional (This is the symbol used locally, not internationally.)	Optional				$

OK. I disagree with you on the Unicode requirement, but does not matter. Later: extra row for the unichar. -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean you disagree that it should be required? OK, I was dithering about that one and won't argue. Case by case, I think. I don't think anyone would insist on ₨ rather than Rs, for example. My concern is more about misunderstood "symbols" that are really abbreviations. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

100% DePiep (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• |unit= 'advised' is OK with me. UNderstandable. One canalso set Required in TemplateData. Could you add this to the /doc tables &tc? -DePiep (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Changes 28 September 2022

• Y Planned changes (see also {{Infobox currency/testcases}}). Pilot articles: Pound sterling, US dollar,

New parameters: |name_abbr=, |unit=, |obsolete=, |image_alt_1=, |image_alt_2=

New tracking category: Category:Pages using Infobox currency with unknown parameters (0)

1. Added |name_abbr=. Will show in subheader, with currency_name_in_local. eg, |name_abbr=Stg.
2. Added |unit=. Will show under new subheader "Unit". eg, |unit=Pound
3. Tracking: when |name_abbr= and |unit= are not present, the article is categorised in Category:Pages using Infobox currency to check (30). (The parametrs may be empty). IOW: when one is added (could be empty), the article is removed from the category.
4. Super- and subunit info stay under header "Denominations". Minor formatting adjustments.
5. New parameters |image_alt_1, image_alt_2= added, 100% synonyms for |alt1, alt2=. Added for parameternaming consistency.
6. Regular Category:Pages using Infobox currency with unknown parameters (0) not affected (new parameters are whitelisted).
7. remove setting "font-size:85%;" below (footnote, obsolete notice): cannot stack font reduction. Set obsolete notice in italics.
8. Added |obsolete= as full synonym for |obsolete_notice=, naming consistency (is acting as blank/T parameter)

• Edits needed: |unit= and/or |name_abbr= can be added. Initial omission does not break Infobox.

Documentation to be updated

-DePiep (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 28 September 2022 (UTC) passim 09:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Live

 Done -DePiep (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC) ​​

For |name_abbr=, |unit= checking & updating, Category:Pages using Infobox currency with unknown parameters (0) is your friend. I advise to change the pound asap, before it may be gone altogether ;-) Ping or talkpage me when questions arise. -DePiep (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

name_abbr position?

Pound sterling and Renminbi updated, both look ok but

 Not done New Zealand dollar because the placement of the currency abbreviation is wrong (produces tāra o Aotearoa (Māori) ($NZ)), abbr needs a new line. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: ping as requested. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You mean: abbr always on separate line? And no ()-brackets then.

Alt option: add to infobox title, not bold: "New Zealand dollar ($NZ)". DePiep (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

? We're talking the abbr. Add to title row as I just demo'ed? DePiep (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

repeat question: shall I add abbr to infobox title, not bold: "New Zealand dollar ($NZ)"? -DePiep (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: For now, best use new line. I think we are going to have arguments over "alternatives" like C$ (!) and CA$, so citations will be needed and would look terrible in the title bar. [And yes, just unit, main is implied]. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 28

September 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Live. So, now extra line in subheader, unbold, no brackets added (but one can input them). See variants testpages (live template=lefthand!). Also NZ$ ;-) -DePiep (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

OK that (new line) works. I admit that it would look nicer in the title bar but best leave it until the dust has settled on the updates. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

unit labeling?

Looks good to me so far, although I would prefer it to display as "Main unit" rather than just "unit". TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Oops, TheCurrencyGuy, thought I was replying to JMF... Now, reply to TCG: 1. Thanks, good to hear :-)

2. Short "Unit" was chosen, because non-main units already are labeled "super" or "sub". No confusion AFAIK, so no need to be overly specific. DePiep (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, the word "Unit" is now in a separate, dedicated header! Also helps making it Important. (and the extra data like plurals nicely go with it too) DePiep (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I just think it makes for a more discrete categorisation: superunit, main unit, subunit :) TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I see too. Except: still works & correct if you leave out the "main"; does not add any info (quite opposite). "subunit" is straightforward related to the "unit". In semantic meaning, there is not difference between "the currency unit" and "the currency main unit": they unmistakenly signify the same, no confusion. (Even when there were an exotic currency with two "main" units, can be solved by using input |unit=first one is Alpha, second one is Beta unit (see foo foo[99]). DePiep (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

references

References

ISO 4217 code: changes

Changes wrt ISO 4217:

• New parameter |iso_comment=Any text, will show after |iso_code=, with space. Shows unedited; the comment will also show when |iso_code=<blank> or missing.
• Target Category:ISO 4217 (1) for the articles will change into Category:Currencies with ISO 4217 code (name change). Name reflects content. The Category:ISO 4217 (4) will become the umbrella for topic of ISO 4217 (eponymous).
• |iso_code=none will add the article to Category:Currencies without ISO 4217 code (new).

Notes: categorising text can be |iso_code=none, no, not, '''None''' (A=a).

The text will show unedited. Advice: for longer texts, add a |iso_comment=.

So: |iso_code=ABC or None (or FooNonsense) is triggering categorisation. A blank |iso_code= has no categorising effect for the reader (for maintenance: see next).

• When |iso_code=<blank> or missing, article is categorised in Category:Pages using Infobox currency to check (30), (hidden, maintenance category). Sorted under "I".

Also: when |unit= is missing, article is added to Category:Pages using Infobox currency to check, sorted under "U".

Also: when |symbol= is missing, article is added to Category:Pages using Infobox currency to check, sorted under "S".

• Changed LH labeltext into "Subunit (decimals)" from "Exponent"(?).

|iso_exponent=: added full synonym |iso_decimals=.

Y preparing, testing. DePiep (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2022 ... 10:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done DePiep (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

See also § ISO 4217: use checks & automated input for later changes in this, wrt ISO 4217. -DePiep (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Parameter changes: era, qid

• I've added |era= to the whitelist parameters, to be used later on. Gathering data while doing other tasks. -DePiep (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• African Development Bank has an IB currency, but for different topic (their currency). For this: |qid= added. ADB Unit of Account (Q112107910). Unused at the moment. -DePiep (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: use title

I have, boldly, changed the Infobox to use standard Infobox |title= for Currency Name (not |above= then): semantically, it is the Title of the box (currency). Now appears above the box. |currency_name_in_local, name_abbr= now appear as |above= just inside the box border, right in top (close to the title, being names/identifiers too).

Removed deviating styling of |above=: kept bolding, larger, as "above"=subtitles go. (note: |name_abbr= is unbolded).

See for results: Pound sterling (with abbr, image), Japanese yen (lang), Afghan afghani (lang). DePiep (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

subunit presentation

IB live: show sub1

Unit
Unit	dollar
Symbol	$‎
Denominations
Subunit
1⁄100	cent
Plural
cent	cents
Symbol
cent	$c
Nickname
cent	Nick1

• The IB (infobox) has options to preset superunits (>¤1⁄1) and subunits (<¤1⁄1).

It has several flaws. For example, properties of a single sub1 are scattered. Data present (subX is more complete than superX, so pilot is with subX):

sub1:
| subunit_name_1     = cent
| symbol_subunit_1   = $c
| subunit_ratio_1    = {{frac|1|100}}
| plural_subunit_1   = cents
| nickname_subunit_1 = Nick1

I want to look for a better presentation (in this thread). -DePiep (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Thoughts: per subX all data together. In some tabular form, by subX. Make fraction show like "1⁄100¤"; could reuse subsymbol. Later more. -DePiep (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• c/p From JMF earlier post [4] -DePiep (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if this will fit everywhere and what happens when there is no plural or "it depends" plural but how about:

Subunit[s]
Ratio   Name   Plural   Abbr.
1⁄12   Shilling  Shillings   s., /-
1⁄240   Penny   Pence   d

--User:John Maynard Friedman 𝕁𝕄𝔽 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox development topics

These are living examples and demo's. During cevelopment, older posts (demo's) may be edited to show more recent develoment status. Otherwise, regular WP:Etiquette applies.

LRM mark after symbol

• After all |symbol=X data showing, the U+200E LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK (&lrm;) character is added. It cancels any possible RTL effects from RTL scripts (like Arabic); no effect with rtl like Latin. Invisible, will copy/paste.

 Done -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Symbol comment too big

Un petit problème

At French franc, there is a short story at the symbol=, which would not matter except the template wraps the info in {{big}}, so we get F or Fr (briefly also NF during the 1960s; also unofficially FF and ₣), which is trop flamboyant. Ideas? an extra "nobig" option? => symbol=abc, def and ghi |nobig? Or should cheat and declare that Fr was the primary symbol and the others were just abbreviations (except ₣, which never left the drawing board). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I propose to add |symbol_unicode= to allow for {{Unichar}}, when applicable.

Demo Symbol-comment-1
Symbol	₨ (briefly also NF during the 1960s; also unofficially FF and ₣)
in Unicode	U+20A8 ₨ RUPEE SIGN
|symbol_comment=

I'd say (1) leave the symbol big. Big is useful because many symbols are uncommon and detailed, so show as painting, illuistrative too, not a Latin character. In this case, Latin "Fr." can join. But also (2) I propose to add |symbol_comment=, which will show in regular font. (Then, (3) with single symbol parameter, we can apply it to subunit fractions like "1/100 Fr." later on).

Proposal: add |symbol_comment=; inline, with solved situation when the comment is a ref (not-spaced). -DePiep (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done |symbol_comment= added. See Afghan afghani, French franc.

Note: when the comment is a bare <ref>, the space should be omitted. (minor issue, no harm done). -DePiep (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"Now he tells me!" I don't think it matters (much) as there will probably be other examples, but I think I may have misdirected traffic on this one. I have opened a new topic at talk:French Franc but I think now that F and Fr are not symbols for the French Franc, they are abbreviations. The only symbol was ₣ but it should not be shown as the symbol since it never became accepted. Though maybe we could show it with a suitable symbol_comment? ;--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR: No question for IB.

The new |symbol_comment= is needed to handle, well, comments (as you pointed out here first, re size). The F/Fr issue is not template-related but content so you are at the right talkpage there. Call me here when the template needs adjustment or options. Could be |symbol_style=css.... (That said, personally I think we should not put too much stress on the abbr. Current header-throne is much already... Symbol is much more important & to be recognisable and correct as currency ID!, to be used in value amounts. Expect a long and slow campaign to have the proper symbol in the header). DePiep (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

symbol properties (sing/pl, lang, format)

I see that symbols are often in multiple, like in Algerian dinar, French franc. Could be by script (local/Latin) and by sing/pl. Also, to signal the symbol itself we could use an inline marker (but the {{angbr}} looks overdone inline: {{angbr|NF}}). For now I am using {{mono}}: NF). Also, maybe we need a "symbol_to_use_in_IB" to format in-IB currency amounts ("¤_1⁄100"). Ideas? -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Example list (may be expanded):

DA: دج (Arabic), DA (Latin) ← Algerian dinar

Fr: F or Fr (briefly also NF during the 1960s; also unofficially FF and ₣) ← French franc

Afl.: Afl and ƒ. ← Aruba florin (both symbols equally used, as full synonyms?)

圓 / 円 (Yen){efn|The "圓" symbol is now obsolete in Japan.} ← Meiji Tsuho; dual scripts

-DePiep (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Another option is {{char}} which leaves everything alone except put a fine box around it. Like this: دج. Any better? (Caution: I got my only ever reference to ANI arising from a "full and frank exchange of views" about whether it should even exist. It was grudgingly accepted for tiny glyphs that would disappear if not demarcated somehow. But I've noticed it being used increasingly where use mention distinction is needed and italics wouldn't work.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

While editing (some 150 |symbol_comments=), I see a use/need for |symbol1, symbol2, symbol3= +list & comment option. Then apply a dedicated formatting (not generic {{char}} then), + format option. All notes can go into _comments. And this is before looking at the subunits. DePiep (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Symbol in Unicode

Demo Symbol-unicode-1
Symbol	₨
in Unicode	U+20A8 ₨ RUPEE SIGN
|symbol_unicode= doc: "use {{Unichar}}"

• I propose to add |symbol_unicode= to allow for {{Unichar}}, when applicable.

To consider: the link to "Indian rupee sign" could be moved into here, as demo-ed, so that the symbol itself is not cluttered with the underline ("ornaments" as they are called). Not for Latin characters. Could add script name? -DePiep (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still think that this is a bad idea. The articles are about the currencies, not the currency signs. Yes, {{unichar}} definitely should be shown at the currency sign articles but here at the currency it is just adding even more clutter to the infobox. I oppose this addition. (Btw, you have the wrong target for your nlink= .)--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

When ISO code=none

• Please consider: create "Category:Currency without ISO 4217 code" (sub of Category:ISO 4217 (1)). It should help the Reader distinguishing between: "Has definitely no ISO code" and "ISO code unknown". For this, (1) We could prescribe in doc: |iso_code= to start with codeword "none", and (2) is default-formatted into eg "none (cryptocurrency)^[9]" [[:Cat:..No ISO 4217]]. -DePiep (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Better: add |iso_code_comment= and conclude, in coordiantion with |iso_code= that currency does not have an ISO 4217.

  By extension: split current category to distinguish obsolete currencies. And: consider the funds & platinum currencies. ISO 4217 needs a big upgrading anyway. DePiep (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Value formatting pattern

• |value_pattern?= We could add the value formatting pattern(s). ¤ before/after, spaces, fractions. rule + example. -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Show abbreviation in the "unit" box?

A number of the currencies I've been looking at don't have a unique symbol but what they do have is an abbreviation letter or letters that act as such. I have in mind F for Franc and zł for złoty. I appreciate the purist view that the symbol and the abbreviation denote the currency not the unit but for all but two currencies the distinction is academic (en_us: moot). I suggest that this arrangement would be a far more user-friendly as well as less contentious. (And it is currently lost under the infobox bar.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Will not be sourceable, I expect. Because such abbr is sloppy or incorrect usage of a the currency abbr. Or keyboard missing pond sign. Like "I found 5 Stg.!". Does not help to put sloppy informalities in the IB. Of course, you can disprove this with a source. For any of the 450 currencies we have. DePiep (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I add: when abbr usage for symbol is a bit common (to be convinced), and as opposed to currency abbr, we can & should add it as a symbol_comment. Not as a symbol. -DePiep (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I recognise that it is not easy and we may have to toss this one around for a bit. Certainly it is true (as a general principle) that terse titles in the infobox can mislead. [Btw, the current title "unit" for this section of the infobox need not be sacrosanct.]

I'm not clear on what you mean by is "not sourceable"? I assume you can't mean for example that zł100 is "wrong"? or that F10 is "wrong"?

We have a saying in the UK that "hard cases make bad law" which in essence says that laws should not be drafted on the basis of edge cases, that they should set out the broad principles and leave it to judges to determine the awkward cases. Likewise here, the infobox should be designed to handle 90% of currencies and the exceptions can be resolved with footnotes or body-text references. Sterling is such an awkward case [sometimes it is a noun, sometimes an adjective, sometimes both at once] and correct usage of the abbreviation belongs in body content, not the infoboz. For almost all currencies, the norm is either symbolamount or abbreviationamount. So stg. 5 million may look a bit lazy but it would be understood – although a professional would certainly write GBP 5 million. Are there other uses for the abbreviation? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"not sourceable": The infobox is not interested in any abbreviation of the symbol. At all. You have just rejected even adding symbol's {{Unichar}} definition—which is more useful & defining than an abbr. Now if an "abbreviation" is actually used as the currency symbol, i.e., in an amount, or on banknotes, it is called a "symbol" and infobox will treat it as such. (IOW, the infobox does not need to serve colloquial slang usage of "dlr." in sentences). DePiep (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we must still be at cross purposes, probably because this whole area is so messy. The concept of "an abbreviation of the symbol" never occurred to me, only an abbreviation of the currency name. I think we have the additional conceptual problem of the [currency] abbreviation being used as a de-facto currency symbol (as in, it is used in the same style and same way as are the dedicated currency symbols). So let me put down a few cases to see if we get on the same wavelength:

• Pre-ISO conventions that are still to be found: US$, $AU, IR£, GB£, FF. You name it. These were used as prefixes for sums of money and sometimes in text as abbreviations for the currency. IMO
• Sterling: abbreviated as Stg. Simple and well documented. Usage? "£5 bn. stg.": clearly in text shorthand, valid. "Stg 5 million": invalid. Symbol is £, again generally unambiguous.
• US Dollar: symbol is $, abbreviation is US$. No contest. "Dlr" is just slang, not notable.
• Pakistan Rupee: formal symbol is the ligature ₨ but it seems that the discrete pair Rs is almost universal. And again "Rs" [R,s] is used to prefix amounts of money and as in-text abbreviation. Is it a symbol, an abbreviation or both?
• Polish Złoty: what is zł.? Is it a symbol, an abbreviation or both? IMO it is only an abbreviation, the Polish currency does not have symbol.

Discuss! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You wrote, opening line: A number of the currencies ... don't have a unique symbol but what they do have is an abbreviation letter or letters that act as such. That says to me: "sometimes an abbr is used as a symbol". Next, I wrote: if something is used as a currency symbol, it is a symbol full stop. And the IB will handle it as a currency symbol full stop. This implies that it does not matter where it came from (could be runic, could be an abbr, could be invented, could be double-bar-everything as often occurs this century -- whatever). So, when it <semantically> is a symbol, there is no need to signal where it came from.

If any relevance of this "abbr" claim remains, that should go in the article body. Of course, such usage should be sourced convincingly, preferably by banknotes & coins. Finally, I think we've spend enough time on abbr's for now. Other issues are more urgent. (Also, I have not read any problem using current IB in this issue). DePiep (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I can accept that analysis. My purist model was about to come badly unstuck with non-Latin forms, where I don't have a clue how to classify them. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

References

DePiep (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Cryptocurrencies

The cryptocurrencys have a separate Infobox: {{Infobox cryptocurrency}} (talk) (parameters usage list); some 45 articles have. That IB was forked from this IB currency. I have made an overview at {{Infobox currency/overview/crypto}}: crosscheck Wikidata cryptocurrency (Q13479982) <-> enwiki articles. (Also has cryptocurrency code (P5810)).

Takeaway: crypto's and regular currencies do not share an infobox. DePiep (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Applause! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox to present 'era', 'obsolete', 'historical' clear & prominent

At the moment, the IBcurrency notes "obsolete" by different backgroundcolor (pink), by footnote "info from before abandoning", and possibly by an end-date in the data rows. That is a bot meagre, and could be more informative.

I propose to make changes:

1. Show "obsolete" more prominently, say by extra subheader-bar.
2. The "obsolete" status is determined by |obsolete=yes/date/... IB could say "Obsolete", but also "Historical" (think >100 year ago, ancient &tc). The bar could also have an Era (in years, or just the end date).
3. Color change abandoned, is meaningless and evenis unhelpful (because if we use a support color, then "Currency" shoudl have a single one. Tones might be applicable though.
4. Some Currency articles cover more than one (say, the history of the bolívar currencies). The IB should be able to cover those (no problem at the moment).

Later on I will present demo's here. -DePiep (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I support these proposals. To distinguish only by colour is against MOS:ACCESS at least (and in any case the code is meaningless to most readers). I'm less sure about the word "era" since it already has meanings (calendar era, geological era) and could be misunderstood. (On first reading, for example, I thought it would be "currency of the Babylonian empire" or similar, certainly nothing in the last century or two? I don't have a better idea, though! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

With "era" in this context, I am thinking of time period (start–end). Years, rr "X century BCE". Having to click on Babylonian Kingdom to know it is bad design (forbidden). -DePiep (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Word "Obsolete" best used of abandoned ISO-currencies (i.e., they are not maintained but may be existing in RL like in contracts). And other such recent currencies. ("abandoned after 1978").

Propose start using (showing) the word "Historically" for more ancient currencies. Any better cutoff than ISO's end data? -DePiep (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "obsolete" is good. In a very few cases maybe wikt:obsolescent might be more appropriate but it is used to capture a transition phase that nobody will maintain.

Odd, but for some illogical reason I am content with the word "era" for "x century BCE" but it bothers me in the case of, say, the Reichsmark. Yes, use it, maybe someone in the future will think of a better word that is equally succinct. Most people will be looking at the content, not the packaging.

ISO's end-date is an entirely defensible line in the sand. No doubt they have done all the diplomatic negotiations, who are we to know better?

Great work on this infobox! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Source of Standard ISO 4217 available

Template {{ISO 4217/cite}} now has the source (definition) of the ISO 4217 codes & currencies. See its documentation for use options. Article ISO 4217 may need a check. As a bulletlist, the sources are:

Website:

• "Data Standards, ISO 4217 - Currency Code Maintenance: Get the Correct Currency Code". www.six-group.com. SIX Group. 2022-10-01.

Definition files:

• "List One: Currency, fund and precious metal codes" (XLS). www.six-group.com. SIX Group. 2022-09-23.
• "List Two: Fund codes registered with the Maintenance Agency" (XLS). www.six-group.com. SIX Group. 2018-08-29.
• "List Three: Codes for historic denominations of currencies and funds" (XLS). www.six-group.com. SIX Group. 2018-08-22.
• "Overview Amendments" (XLSX). www.six-group.com. SIX Group. 2022-09-23.

DePiep (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: more local_name support

I have prepared these changes in the infobox:

1. |name=, |local_name_format= are added as full synonyms ("aka") for |currency_name=, |currency_name_in_local=. This is to simplify names to remember.

2. Added: |local_name=, |local_name_lang=. These take plain text input (foreign lang/script expected), and the infobox will compose {{Native name}} automatically. e.g. → евро (Bulgarian)

This eases the usage (no need to study {{Native name}}), and allows standard formatting (to be: smaller font for "(Greek)" language link; which is in Above title, so actually undo-the-enlarging).

3. These parameters will be tracked in Category:Pages using Infobox currency to check (30) for incorrectness (double usage, unused |_lang=).

4. |unit, symbol= will be removed from that tracking catergory (initial need, i.e. to add units, is not urgent apparently).

Testcases are active, but in a more technical testing.

Y Ready for implementation.

DePiep (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Also: up to three local names can be added for automated listing (|local_name1, local_name_lang1, ..., local_name3, local_name_lang3=.

Name-issues tracked under "N" in Category:Pages using Infobox currency to check

-DePiep (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

ISO 4217: use checks & automated input

By now, {{ISO 4217/code}}, based on the full {{ISO 4217/cite}} source, is ready for this infobox.

A listing of the 452 data rows is in {{ISO 4217/overview}}. Changes to Infobox currency:

• {{ISO 4217/code}} checks whether the |iso_code= exists (is defined in ISO 4217).

Bad codes will categorise the article in new tracking category Category:Pages using ISO 4217 currency to check (0) (sort=C).

|iso_code=''None'' is recognised (any format), and shown. Categorises the article in public Category:Currencies without ISO 4217 code (91).

• The iso_number will be automatically added, per iso-code. Using {{ISO 4217/code-to-number}}. It appears that each code has the same number overall.

(Actual usefullness of the number, next to the code, is doubtful. Especially in this infobox; in article ISO 4217-list would be enough).

• "|exponent=" in ISO 4217 stands for minor unit: number of decimals for the subunit. For USD: "2", i.e. 0.01 (the cent). This number too is determined by the code. So {{ISO 4217/code-minor-unit}} will provide this automatic per the code. N.B. when historical, the minor unit is defined as blank, none.

The value is shown in actual decimal representation: 0.01 for "2". Note: many currencies have no or trivial minor unit defined: blank, "N.A." or "0" (?! trivial). These will show no minor unit.

Minor unit exception: twelve codes are ambivalent; they appear in both history and active list (List Three, List One). For example PEN. In this case, |obsolete=yes/no decides on which value applies. Default=no (Active).

• |iso_ref= is added. Will be placed after iso_code, iso_comment (properly non-spaced).
• Deprecated parameters: |iso_number, iso_exponent, iso_decimals= (unused, automated).

|obsolete_notification= is abandoned as main switch for obsolete/active. |obsolete=yes/no does this job.

Y prepared in sandbox. DePiep (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 code implemented. -DePiep (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Propose removal of Numeric Code (ISO 4217)

{{ISO 4217/overview}} lists all ISO 4217 code definitions (452 data rows). It also shows the Numeric code by ISO definition.

The actual definition, nor its usefulness, of the numeric is not known. I therefor propose to remove it from {{Infobox currency}}. (It can stay in the lists in article ISO 4217). If someone can clarify its definition & use, that would be helpful. -DePiep (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Support. I have never seen it the wild. My guess would be that it is to provide a constant reference number even if, for political reasons, the TLA is changed. Suppose, for example, the UK government were to declare that the ISO code for sterling should be changed from GBP to UKP, the index number would remain unchanged at 826. Whether in the real world that safety net would actually save horrendous disruption is highly doubtful. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Off-note: your guess is not what I found or met in the data. First, of course any serious Standard would not let outsiders like London decide their standard (BoE can do a lot by themselves, but ISO incorporates them by themselves. ISO follows BoE changes at their own judgement). And data analysis does not point to "standard stability" in any way or form (unlike, say, Unicode Standard does). It's very hard to detect a stable identifier (key), even over multiple properties (like combining code, List, end-date, entity: could be broken in a whimp). Sloppy data definitions is the word, and then there are the minor inconsistencies. For the current version, it is doable, but we are not sure what will change in the next one. I mean, publishing "<blank>" as a Currency Code, really?

For identifying purposes, the Numeric Code is not a help. DePiep (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In all probability you are right but with the level of ideologically driven lunacy displayed by our Dear Leaders in the past six years, it is certainly not far fetched. We can't assume that ISO has any control over it. See for example the their announcement page where the say that Turkey is now Turkiye. See also https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58734265 --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

ISO 4217 is decided on a different desk. It can only follow GovBanks, but will decide on their own codes &tc. It is not BoE that decides about "GBP" as ISO-code. (See also cryptocurrency: none has been given an ISO code). But alas, all asides. DePiep (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• It looks like Numeric Code is used as identifier (1:1 unique relation with the Code), eg at IBAN (which is serious in international money traffic; only few live codes are missing in that list). One big restriction: only valid for active currencies (List One). List Two and Three are out of bounds, and ruining the identification process: For example, over all Lists both codes ALK (L3=obsolete) and ALL (L1) have Numeric Code 008. With currenty definitions (17 Oct 2022), we can safely say "Number <-> Code" are mutually identfying.

For this, and by lack of other definitions, the Infobox will show the number, bracketed, with the Code when in List One (i.e., as when & as active). -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you are doing and it makes sense, but I disagree with your solution, sorry. To my eye, this:

Code    USD (840) cmt[1]

just looks too unconventional and will confuse the uninitiated. I'm afraid that "number" has to go back. For most readers, it is clutter but at least it is identifiably clutter that they can ignore with a clear conscience, especially if is wlinked as before. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Oops, only see this now. Will read later carefully (& /sandbox is bizzy with smthng else). DePiep (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

A new full line (row) for an insignificant identifier (noone is interested in) is a bit unbalanced to me. I am thinking, like:

	Code	USD  (numeric: 840)
		(comment below, no LH label)[1]

And Comment-brackets could be omitted (article editor). The thinking continues. -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Done this: now appears as "USD (numeric: 123)" on same line, |iso_comment= always on newline.

Good enough? (Thing is, I'm still not happy with a full new line for a derived, low imporatance secondary ID that numeric code is.) @John Maynard Friedman: DePiep (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that't better. I can't decide whether "numeric" needs a wlink but on balance probably not as I suspect that anyone really curious would expect to find it at ISO 4217. I agree that the numeric code definitely doesn't deserve its own line. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

OK. I'll hear you if in a few weeks there is still an itch. DePiep (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

References