Dove1950

I have recently found an old book with information about Gibraltar's coinage, you can read what I've written about it at the Talk: Gibraltarian real --Chris Buttigieg 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you're going to revert my attempt to bring the capitalization of the article in line with the title, please could you move the article so that the name of the article matches the spelling used? Thanks 86.140.179.200 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There was a survey last year (see Talk: German mark) which could not reach a consensus on the matter of the title for this article. Feel free to start this discussion again and see if we can reach a consensus this time around.
Dove1950 17:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Thanks for your additions to the this article, but do you have any reliable references to cite? It's quite important. Too many Indonesia-related articles have no such citation. regards Merbabu 01:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have reverted your edits on Irish pound.

This was because the first paragraph introduced terms that are substanstially original research. Also the other edits seam to go off topic and may be better in other articles such as those on banknotes or coinage and indeed you are welcome to contribute to those that pre-exist (remembering that original research, even if in good faith is not allowed). Alternatively you may want to start an article on history of the Irish pound or history of Irish currencies for the historical aspects. It maybe worth citing an authoritive source for when the Irish pound came into existance and indeed this would be welcome.

Please consider the consiquences of you reverting what I have done before reverting. And if you are tempted to move the article please discuss on talk page first. Please try to remember that these issues where discussed before and the consensus was to not introduce terms that might be original research (and indeed this is a wikipedia policy). Djegan 00:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Dove1950.

I stand by my reversions, please dont introduce original research, see WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY.The onus is on you to prove that it is not original research. Djegan 23:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Dove1950.

We are both nearing 3RR but what you are doing is not acceptable. If you want to write irish pound out of the article then at least have the notice to get a successful move request firstly. Also at least read and contribute to the discussion if doubtful. You need to understand that this article is about the Irish pound (i.e. the currency), not the detail of individual coins and notes for which their are other articles. Djegan 00:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you've used as an example of omitting the plural from the names of coins and banknotes "2 dollar bill". I agree that one hears this but I'm not convined it has any foundation in correct English, British or American. The Concise OED does not list dollar as having an irregular plural. In particular, I'm uncomfortable about applying this notion to examples such as eyrir/aurar without a good linguistic foundation. I know it's a bit pedantic but I have been thinking about this as I've been writing and I reckon we ought to decide what's right before we write too many more articles.
Dove1950 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Even though English is not my native language, I distinctly remember learning this one thing in school. "If a quantitative adjective phrase describes a noun, then the unit of this adjective phrase shall remain singular at all times." Examples include "5 year old kid" or "10 dollar bill". I also asked a few of my friends who are native English speakers, American though. I think this is the correct grammar, American or British. You said that you hear this all the time too. That is why I apply the same rule to the Icelandic currency. When I read our style guide, I interpret that as "use local form on the word, but use English grammar on the sentence". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll get looking for a reliable grammar book and check this up. I can't argue with your examples but, being British, I never got taught English grammar at school so I'm trying to work it out as I go along.
Dove1950 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for butting in, but I do suggest that you check this out. The normal usage is to drop the plural in situations like this:

Not once in our thousand-year history.

A hundred-pound weakling.

A six-foot giant.

A twenty-gallon drum.

A five-mile walk.

A ten-kilometre walk.

A three-hundred foot drop.

A thousand-metre drop.

A twenty-metre yacht.

None of these is used in the plural. A five-miles walk? A twenty-metres yacht? No way! The same goes for coins and notes. As you said about "two-dollar note", " one hears this", and there's a good reason. It's good English.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

As a counter example, I put forward "twenty-pence piece". One undoubtedly hears this. I'm not sure what the rule is and I haven't got around to looking it up but this example demonstrates that such forms are used.
Dove1950 (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Twenty-pence piece, eh? Well, I don't live in Britain. I did, however, live in the days when Australia had coins worth tuppence. From my recollection, we said "twopenny coin" or "twopenny bit". I don't remember anyone ever saying "tuppence coin".

I suspect "twenty-pence piece" may be a new usage. To be frank, I'm not familiar with the use of "pence" in Britain, but I get the impression that the old "penny / pence" usage has broken down. Do you say "one penny" or "one pence"? (I guess maybe just "one p"). In the old days, you couldn't have got away with "one pence"; it would have sounded illiterate or ridiculous. It was a farthing, a halfpenny (ha'penny), a penny, tuppence, sixpence, a shilling, two shillings, etc. "Twenty pence" didn't exist.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just had a look at the article on pound sterling and found all kinds of strange usages. In the days before "new pence", you didn't talk about "three pence" coins or "three pennies" coins. They were called "threepenny coins" (pronounced "thrippeny") or "threepenny bits", or just "threepence" (thrippence). Similarly for all the other coins. Beyond the shilling it was (for instance) "ten shillings and sixpence". There was no "twenty pence" or "fifty pence". If you absolutely had to talk about 50 pennies, my feeling is that that's how you would have said it, "50 pennies", not "50 pence".

Whoever wrote those sections (is it you?) is not aware of the old usage, and is simply projecting the modern "pence" usage back in time.

At any rate, I think that the (new) pence has pretty well mucked up the old usage, so your counterexample is, to use a rather hackneyed expression, "the exception that proves the rule". It's precisely because the usage of (new) pence is so different from what went before that things are confused.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for breaking the deadlock over this page. There's more to go in but perhaps you could suggest where to put information about the Irish banknotes issued between 1826 and 1928 denominated in sterling? I'd be happy to put them in this article but any other suggestions would be welcome.
Dove1950 23:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your support. Trust me when I say I understand your frustration. IMHO, I believe that info about the Irish (whole Ireland if I'm not mistaken) version of pound sterling banknotes between 1826 and 1928 is best placed at Banknotes of Ireland, in a new section perhaps. And a link from Banknotes of the pound sterling would be nice, perhaps a stub section. You can take a look at User:Chochopk/Template sandbox 1, which I ripped from http://www.irishpapermoney.com/in/intro1.html. But on second thought, I'd like to change the vertical flow to a horizontal flow. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I noticed that you often add stub articles and then list them at List of currencies. Can I ask you to do a few extra steps when you create an article.

• Instead of {{Template:Numismaticnotice}} on the talk page, could you do {{Numismaticnotice|class=stub|importance=mid}} or with the appropriate class and importance level? (Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Assessment)
• List the currencies at List of historical currencies as well. I know that this page is far from being complete. But better not "regress" on the completeness.
• Include some references or external links. I trust you. But not every other editors necessarily do.
• Tag the article with one of the "Currency of some continent" category (Category:Currencies by region)

Thank you. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to remember to do as you ask, although I'm not sure I'm the one to be assessing the importance of my own writings. It's true that I don't always put in references. That's partly because so much of the information is already easily acessible on various sites like [1], [2], [3] and [4] that it seems churlish to repeat them so often. I also welcome people challenging what I've written (as long as they're polite and don't revert) because it flags up things that aren't obvious and may require further research (not a rude word in my dictionary). However, perhaps it might be an idea (beyond my implementation but maybe within yours) to create a template that could be added to the bottom of all numismatic articles which included a set of generic links such as those I've just quoted. It could also include a link to list of currencies. As for list of historical currencies, frankly, I don't see the point of the duplication, which is why I haven't been putting anything on it. Perhaps later, when things have settled down a bit (I'm up to "M" on a trawl through all the currency articles) I can take list of currencies, copy it to list of historical currencies and just remove all the currently circulating ones?
Dove1950 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What you're saying is all true. I have thought about template for external links. Now you're mentioned it, maybe we can pool ideas as to what to include. http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/ is also known as http://www.banknoteworld.com, http://www.dollarization.org/ is also known as http://users.erols.com/kurrency/. this file is also an important source. I am also overwhelmed with ever increasing tasks. Would you be able to help applying these templates to the articles? Circulating ones would, of course, have priorities. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to hear you feel overwhelmed. It's not my intention to dump all the housekeeping on one person's shoulders. It's just that I'm still finding enormous amounts of information that need "uploading" and I haven't had any time to worry about other things. If you create a links template, I can add it as I go through the articles, along with any other things you think should go in.
Dove1950 13:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Check this out: {{Standard numismatics external links}} --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Um, you inadvertently reverted my edit. I guess that you were editing it from an external editor to do spell check and avoid browser crashing and stuff. No big deal. Luckily, Wikipedia saves all revisions. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, you're absolutely right, my server was being a bit erratic yesterday.
Dove1950 09:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did You revert my correction on Montenegrin perper? --PaxEquilibrium 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because you provided no evidence for replacing Montenegrin language with Serbian language. Please do so if you want this change to be reinstated.
Dove1950 20:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just replaced it with the default language. I made a correction.

Please provide me evidence why to place "Montenegrin language" instead of "Serbian". Is there any reason? Usually we need reasons to replace default languages with another... --PaxEquilibrium 22:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

No need to get shirty. If the Montenegrin language doesn't exist, how come there's an article on it? Looking at the article, it seems that there is some disagreement as to the precise linguistic status in Montenegro. Consequently, one can harldy refer to Serbian as the "default language". Can I suggest that this discussion continues on Talk:Montenegrin perper?
Dove1950 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, no one said that it doesn't exist, but it hardly exists, yeah. :) The controversy is even explained in its article. I could ask you the same thing for Serbo-Croatian, which does not exist (and never existed) for many people - but mostly as a result of political blatant nationalism (it's all Serbo-Croat in the end).

But the arguments lie in here: In 1905 the very same Prince Nicholas I Petrovic-Nyegosh that made the currency not a full year later, brought the Constitution of the Princedom of Montenegro; one of its articles says the Serbian language is (was) the official language of the Principality (later Kingdom). The constitution remained in power until Montenegro joined Serbia in 1918. Besides that, the Serbian language was in usage throughout the 1906-1918 period in Montenegro, with numerous notable works written then, and the 1909 first ever free population census conducted in Montenegro, recorded that over 95% of the population spoke the Serbian language.

Why do You think it should be stated in the article, instead of the "real" language? --PaxEquilibrium 10:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why didn't you give this explanation in the beginning?
Dove1950 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, Montenegrins are a Serbian-speaking nation. The same would be if You changed the "German language" to "Austrian language" at the Vienna article. :) I thought everyone knows this.

BTW, the Serbian language is the present official language (e.g. in the Constitution) of the Republic of Montenegro, with more than 60% of the Montenegrin population speaking it as a native language. The proposal for a Montenegrin language is only an ongoing as of 2007 controversy (an unformed language with no standards and many proposals with below 22% of Montenegro's population speaking it). --PaxEquilibrium 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I hope all of this is in Wikipedia as I can assure you that it isn't as well known as the situation in Austria. The Balkans are far less well known than you might imagine.
Dove1950 20:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"I hope all of this is in Wikipedia"? What all? --PaxEquilibrium 00:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was referring (rather obviously, I thought) to the information on the linguistic situation in Montenegro. Most of it does seem to be in Montenegrin language, which is good.
Dove1950 10:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have a question about [5]. The coins says "Banque Nationale du Congo 1967". So it should be Congolese franc, not Zairean zaire? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If the coin was a 1 franc, I'd agree, but it's a 1 likuta and hence belongs in Zairean zaire, or possibly in Congolese zaire if it existed.
Dove1950 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Before your recent edit, the article Serbian dinar, Yugoslav krone, and Yugoslav dinar conclude a linear succession relation: Serbian dinar - 1918 - Yugoslav krone - 1920 - Yugoslav dinar. Now that your edits suggest that it's more complicated than that. Currently they read:

• Serbian dinar

In 1918, the Serbian dinar was replaced at par by the Yugoslav dinar, with the Yugoslav krone also circulating until 1920.

• Yugoslav krone

The krone was a short-lived, provisional currency used in the then newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes from 1918-11-12 until 1923.

• Yugoslav dinar

Until 1918, the dinar was the currency of Serbia. It then became the currency of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, circulating alongside the krone until 1923, with 1 dinar = 4 kronen.

So I guess my questions are:

• Did Serbian dinar and Yugoslav krone co-circulate? If yes, from when to when?

I can't tell

• Did Yugoslav krone and Yugoslav dinar co-circulate? If yes, from when to when?

It seems that the answer is 1918 - 1923

• Did Yugoslav dinar and Serbian dinar co-circulate? If yes, from when to when?

I can't tell

Thanks. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another set of questions.

• Around 1941

It seems that both articles say that the Serbian dinar replaced the first Yugo dinar at par. It is consistent. But I can't seem to find a source the specifies the ratio?

• Around 1944/45

Your edit on Serbian dinar says that "This dinar circulated until 1944, when the Yugoslav dinar was reintroduced, replacing the Serbian dinar at a rate of 1 Yugoslav dinar = 20 Serbian dinara.", but then the succession box says 1945. Yugoslav dinar says 1944. GFD says 1945.

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yet another question - how do you know that the novi dinar replaced its previous dinar at exactly 12 million to 1? I tried to find a number, but I got a few different numbers, that's why I put 10~13 million there in the first place..... --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for looking over my edits. With regard to the Yugoslav krone, there's no evidence that this replaced the dinar in those parts of Yugoslavia where it already circulated (i.e., Serbia). One GFD page says "The Dinar was introduced in Yugoslavia on December 25, 1918 to replace the Austrian Krone. The exchange rate was officially set at 1 Yugoslav Dinar = 4 Kronen on December 30, 1922." which indicates that the kronen was in circulation until at least the end of 1922. Unfortunately, I'm now struggling to find the source for the 1923 withdrawal date. The Serbian dinar became the Yugoslav dinar, so to ask if the two circulated alongside each other doesn't make any sense. Perhaps that needs clarifying.

In 1941, this was reversed, with the Yugoslav dinar becoming the Serbian dinar when the country was split up. Evidence for this comes from the fact that Yugoslav notes were issued for use in Serbia according to Pick (Something else that can be inserted). The 1944 date comes from the fact that the first notes are dated 1944 and that the liberation, though completed in 1945, was underway in 1944. The GFD table actually gives the date as 1943, though that must be wrong.

The explanation of the 7th to 8th conversion rate also comes from GFD. It's worth noting that GFD has two pages for each currency which don't always contain the same information. Your very nice template only links to one of the two pages.

Now it's my turn to ask a question. You've replaced the ordinals with years in the designations of the different dinara. I really don't like this for two reasons. First, in the succession boxes, we now see 1 1992 dinar = 10 1990 dinar, which is bound to confuse some people. Secondly, the currencies do have "real" names, although most never appeared on the currencies. These were

• 1944 - Federation
• 1966 - Hard
• 1990 - Convertible
• 1992 - Reformed
• 1993 - October
• 1/1/1994 - 1994
• 24/1/1994 - Novi

Obviously, novi has to be in the article as it was on the currency for several years. For the others, can I suggest the following titles?

• First dinar, 1918-1941
• Second (Federation) dinar, 1944-1965
• Third (Hard) dinar, 1966-1989
• Fourth (Convertible) dinar, 1990-1992
• Fifth (Reformed) dinar, 1992-1993
• Sixth (October) dinar, 1993
• Seventh (1994) dinar, 1994
• Eighth (Novi) dinar, 1994-2003

Dove1950 11:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Answered at Talk:Yugoslav dinar (to invite other editors). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good news and a tip! {{Standard numismatics external links}} now supports a new type, gfd_data_1_url and gfd_data_1_name would display something that links to http://www.globalfinancialdata.com/index.php3?action=detailedinfo&id=5529. Katangan franc and Congolese franc use this feature now. And if world coin gallery has a url that looks like http://worldcoingallery.com/countries/Zaire.html#Katanga. The template can handle that by

| world_coin_gallery_1_url  = Zaire
| world_coin_gallery_1_name = Katanga
| world_coin_gallery_1_anchor = Katanga

Now the action item is to backfill gfd_data_1_url to the existing users of the template..... --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, While it was the לירה ישראלית lira yisraelit in Hebrew. In English it wall called the Israeli pound more, more often then Israeli lira. Pound and lira are the same "sign."

You will see on the Bank of Israel's website, it is offically called the Israeli pound, and a google search finds 14,900 for Israeli pound, here, versus 653 for Israeli lira (here), and any thing I have seen menioned on it have been Israeli pound (after the Palestine pound). But anyways, Israeli pound is more common and is what the offical Bank of Israel uses. I point out "Israeli lira" is NOT the local name, the local name is לירה ישראלית , which is (lira yisraelit). It would appear "Israeli pound" is both the more common and more offical, so it should be the article name. Epson291 07:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The local name is what matters. This was lira. Israeli is in the article title to distinguish it from other lira currencies. By the way, as I put in the article, the English name used was "Israel pound", not "Israeli pound".
Dove1950 14:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are inncorrect. It was never called the Israeli lira, it was called the לירה ישראלית, if it was titled after the local name, which goes against Wikipedia conventions, then it would be lira (Israel), because it was never called the Israeli lira. It addition, "Israel pound" is not proper, it would be "Israeli pound", see the Bank of Israel's website here,. You wouldn't say the "Canada dollar", you say, the Canadian dollar. Why does the "local" name matter? This isn't the Hebrew Wikipedia. The most common/standard/ and offical ENGLISH name is what should be used in the English Wikipedia.

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions,

(And please respond on the talk page of the article in the future) Epson291 07:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for editting the style guide. In my naivity, I though we had to go through some kind of formal process, hence my not having done it earlier. Can I suggest that the ISO 4217 name is added to the infobox template for those cases where it doesn't match the real name?
Dove1950 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

What about an "alternative unit" attribute? For Lebanese lira, it would be livre and pound. And also "alternative subunit" (qirsh v.s. piastre)? Where do you think these attributes should be placed (i.e. in between which and which row)? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

My original thought was that "ISO 4217 name" would come straight after the code, when needed. Your more general idea would require two fields, one for a description (e.g., language) and one for the name. I guess it ought to go at the top and could follow straight on from name in local language, whilst the subunit alternatives would naturally go straight after the subunits.
Dove1950 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you "move" this page by blanking out the old one, and add everything into markka. Please be advised that edit history will be lost if you do it this way. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know that but the problem is that Finnish markka and Finnish mark had separate histories, so a straight forward move wasn't possible. I explained the move on the Talk page, but if you know of a better way to sort out such problems, please let me know.
Dove1950 11:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

In theory, a request or vote is required, and then after a consensus is reached, an admin will do it. But I'm not ready for another naming convention debate/fiasco right now...... --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of fiascos, I think I need a bit more help on Philippine piso if we're going to preserve sanity.
Dove1950 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am hesitant only because English is one of the official languages of the Philippines. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't you start :-). I agree that that's the argument used in favour of peso but piso has been on all the coins and banknotes for forty years and is therefore the only name people are likely to see in reality. Plus, Filipino is the "national" language according to the constitution, if we need to get technical. Any suggestions as to how we can go about fixing this mess would be gratefully received.
Dove1950 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Can I ask a small favor from you. When you add references and external links, could you make sure that references come before the external links. This appears to be the norm of ordering as seen at the most frequently edited articles. Thanks. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. Somehow I'd got it into my head to do it the other way around. Sorry.
Dove1950 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please accept that a consensus was achieved on talk:Philippine peso concerning the name of that currency for Wikipedia purposes. Changing related article from "peso" to "piso" just after a survey that decided the opposite is not a good faith action. -Will Beback · † · 18:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The survey was closed by an uninvolved admin, user:Stemonitis, five days after it was opened. That's how it's supposed to happen. Is there a problem? -Will Beback · † · 19:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are misreading that comment. user:Stemonitis was the closing, impartial admin, not user:Berserkerz Crit. Stemonitis was replying to an assertion by Berserkerz Critthat there was no need to wait for a proper closing. -Will Beback · † · 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please stop "correcting" the name of the currency. Failure to abide by consensus is not good Wikipedia practice. -Will Beback · † · 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:Stemonitis has already given a general warning:

• Anyone moving the article in the near future will be doing so against consensus, and such a move is likely to be treated as vandalism. Discuss controversial changes before making them.

Let me make that specific. Stop unitaterally changing "peso" to "piso" in articles despite the survey just decided. If you'd like to propose controversial changes please discuss them first. Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, or just to be disruptive, isn't acceptable. -Will Beback · † · 19:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see you are again moving articles without any discussion or survey. I am going to move them back to where they've been for years. If you would like to move them then please follow the instructions for controversial page moves at WP:RM. There is a procedure that needs to be followed. -Will Beback · † · 19:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

As for the usage of "piso", it might be appropriate to follow the usage of the BSP. They refer to the currency as the "peso" and to individual banknotes and coins as "5-piso" or "1000-piso". But they never refer to the "Philippine piso" in the abstract, always the "Philippine peso". You won't find any coin or banknote that says "Philippine piso". -Will Beback · † · 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please stop with the "piso" foolishness. No one is arguing that what is written on the banknotes and coins is "piso." But, it is written that way because the language used on the notes and coins is Filipino. Using "piso" is okay for the Tagalog Wikipedia and other local languages, but this is the English Wikipedia and in English, "peso" is the correct translation, as stated in the charter of the Central Bank of the Philippines. --seav 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes it's fun calling each other "foolish" but it's getting tiring. But I will continue to disagree with you on this issue. Yes, the Wikipedia is very influential, and misleading information has no place in this online reference, but our currency is called "peso" in English and that is not misleading: it's a fact that is espoused by no less than the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, which is the final authority in deciding matters relating to our currency. You've not refuted that fact, and insisting on calling the currency "piso" in English just because that's how it is written on the banknotes and coins, on which all text uses Filipino, not English, is illogical. We might as well move the article on Ferdinand Magellan to "Fernão de Magalhães" since that is the name of the guy as written on the birth certificate (assuming he had one), if we go by your logic. Go ahead, try to move Magellan's article, and you'd be opposed.

By the way, the status quo is that the article's name has the word "peso," not "piso," in it. It's been that way since the article was created almost 4 years ago and I've started contributing to this article almost at the same time it was created. Status quo has large standing in Wikipedia and the consensus poll on Talk:Philippine_peso shows that the status quo should be maintained. Please respect that decision. --seav 05:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see you're still not convinced that the name of the currency in English is "peso". Yes, the word written on the banknotes and coins is "piso" but that's because the language used on the banknotes and coins is Filipino. That does not support your assertion that the name of the currency in English is "peso". See [6]. That's as good as any source stating that the name of the currency in English is "peso". --seav (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

continuation of discussion moved to Talk:Philippine peso where it properly belongs.

I'm just checking to make sure that 'Luxembourgish' is the word that you mean. There's a big dispute over what the adjective for Luxembourg is. WikiProject Luxembourg has adopted the convention of using 'Luxembourgian' for the adjective and 'Luxembourgish' for the language. However, an exception is made if another term is used exclusively in the specific field of the article. So I'm asking if 'Luxembourgish livre' is the term used by English language numismatists (in which case, the article stays where it is) or if 'Luxembourgian' is used as a reflection of the wider argument over the adjective (in which case, I think the article should be moved to 'Luxembourgian livre'). Do you have any idea which is the case? Bastin 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I followed the lead of the article Luxembourgish franc when naming this article. I am not aware of any such term being common in Numismatic circles and would probably have plumped for "Luxembourg livre" otherwise. Feel free to move both these articles, quoting WikiProject Luxembourg.
Dove1950 11:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

After emailing them, it seems as though the term 'Luxembourg franc' and 'Luxembourg livre' are officially endorsed by the Banque Centrale du Luxembourg. That may be because they consider 'Luxembourg' to be the adjective, or because they're using it as the country name (a similar confusion reigns oveer the term 'United States dollar', I suppose). Thus, I'm moving both articles to 'Luxembourg X'. Thanks. Bastin 17:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not. After noticing that 'Luxembourgish franc' couldn't be moved quickly, I checked WikiProject Numismatics to quote them in the proposed move. However, it seems that United States dollar is the one and only exception to the rule that the adjectival form must be used, and that's only to avoid a potentially POV debate. In that case, I revert back to my suggestion that 'Luxembourgian livre'/'Luxembourgian franc' be used. I assume you still have no objection to that. Thanks again. Bastin 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

You're probably tired of me saying GFD isn't completely reliable. I wrote that the somoni started on October 30, 2000 because the central bank says so. I believe we should use GFD as a supporting reference, in conjunction with all others. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I missed that. It does make more sense if it's 2000, as that's the date given for the introduction of the notes. Is the Central Bank reference on the page? If it already was I really am sorry.
Dove1950 21:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The references was not there before your edit. So the mistake is mine. But now it's properly referenced. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can't seem to find the ratio 2⅛ rupees = 1 riyal, at least not on the standard references. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I got it from Krause & Mishler, which says 64 pysa = 1 rupee, 136 pysa = 1 ryal, which works out at 2⅛. Further confirmation would, as ever, be welcome.
Dove1950 14:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#Currency article section hierarchy (history, coins, and banknotes). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have taken some basic lessons of Russian. It appears that the numeric plural (not a formal term though...) depends on the last digit, rather than the total number. I'm talking about this edit with "11.62 Slovak korún = 1 Reichsmark" specifically. It's probable that it would follow the plural of 2 koruny. I'm not sure if my speculation is right. Better ask a true expert. I don't know if there are more instances like this. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure your right but I don't know whether 11.62 would use the form for numbers ending in 1, 2 or someting else. Can I leave that to you?
Dove1950 11:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi! What's your source on the Mongolian Dollar? I haven't seen it mentioned yet in any books on Mongolian history, though User:Latebird has offered an online source on the talk page of de:Tögrög. This online source, however, gives different denominations and I am still not convinced this currency ever even existed. Can you help me out? Yaan 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

My source was
Albert Pick (1994). Neil Shafer & Colin R. Bruce II (ed.). Standard Catalog of World Paper Money, General Issues (7th ed. ed.). Krause Publications. ISBN 0-87341-207-9. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
which I've now added to the article. I hope it's accurate.
Dove1950 13:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've now also added a link to some pictures, which includes a 50 cents note not listed in Pick. I see that de:Tögrög contains some interesting information and that User:Latebird is trying to translate some Mongolian texts. Perhaps s/he could look at the dollar notes to tell us what the Mongolian texts say?
Dove1950 15:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for the source and the link. I have translated the stuff that was mentioned in a mongolian newspaper article provided by Latebird on that german talk page, but my guess is that Latebird is no more competent in reading the classical mongolian script than I am. He may be alright with the cyrillic script, though.

I just looked up the Mongolian currencies in the Albert Pick's Standard Catalog of World Paper Money, Battenberg Verlag München 1975 (i.e. probably an earlier edition of your source), but says that the money (called State Treasury Notes) was not issued (That newspaper article translated on German WP gives the impression the notes were issued, but IMO mongolian newspaper articles are often not too reliable). The denominations listed by Pick are 50 cents, 1,3,5,10 and 25 dollars. Has your edition revised that pieces of information? Yaan 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your source is correct. I'd forgotten about the State Treasury Notes, which weren't issued. The notes mentioned in the article are listed as having been issued and are given numbers A1 - A4, indicating that they were added to the catalogue after it's first edition.
Dove1950 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you follow WT:NUMIS, so I thought I'd tell you personally. I created some templates to make it easier to cite some of our common references. Specifically, {{numis cite SCWC}}, {{numis cite SCWPM}}, {{numis cite GFD}} and {{numis cite TMMH}} so far. You give the SC ones a date= parameter, and they give you a formatted reference. The editions I think you use are {{numis cite SCWC|date=1991}} and {{numis cite SCWPM|date=1960.7}}. I'm going to replace existing references, and make sure the templates handle whatever editions I find. Let me know if you need one that's not handled (there's a list at the template link), or add it yourself. Ingrid 01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have left a message to Ingrid, and I thought I might want to know too. I will probably make some changes to the above mentioned templates, which may not be backward compatible. I'll let you know when it's done. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The revamp on these two templates are done. You're welcome to use them. But I have two questions.

1. Are these the only two books you use? If yes, how do you contribute on banknotes after 1960, such as [7] and [8]?
2. What is the edition of the 19th century coin catalog you use. I'm trying to incorporate that into the template

Thanks. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The books I have are
Chester L. Krause & Clifford Mishler (1991). Colin R. Bruce II (ed.). Standard Catalog of World Coins: 1801-1991 (18th ed. ed.). Krause Publications. ISBN 0-87341-150-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
Albert Pick (1994). Neil Shafer & Colin R. Bruce II (ed.). Standard Catalog of World Paper Money, General Issues (7th ed. ed.). Krause Publications. ISBN 0-87341-207-9. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
Chester L. Krause & Clifford Mishler (1979). Colin R. Bruce II (ed.). Standard Catalog of World Coins (1979 ed. ed.). Krause Publications. ISBN 0-87341-020-3. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
The first is available but without the dates in the title. Can the other two be added?
Dove1950 21:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• SCWC date=1991: Krause, Chester L.; Clifford Mishler (1991). Standard Catalog of World Coins: 1801–1991 (18th ed.). Krause Publications. ISBN 0873411501.
• SCWPM date=1960.7
• SCWC date=1979

Can you confirm that 1979 is the 6th edition? If there was one every year, that's what it would be. Also, I left the dates out of the title because amazon.com and elsewhere leave it out, but I can't find a picture of the cover online. Are the dates on the cover? If so, I'll put them in the reference. What about the 1979 edition? Does it have any dates on the cover? Ingrid 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The 1979 edition of SCWC is the 5th edition. SCWPM date=1960.7 is wrong. This is not "General Issues to 1960" but "General Issues" since this was before Volume 2 was split into Volumes 2 and 3. SCWC 1991 does have the dates 1801-1991 on the cover although looking again it isn't part of the title. The 1979 edition has the dates 1790-1978 on the cover, although it covers some countries back to the 1760s.
Dove1950 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I fixed these. I put the dates in, even if it's not part of the title, since that seems to be how amazon and others do it. If you see any other problems, let me know. Note that the change to SCWPM means that you should use:

• SCWPM date=1994 Pick, Albert (1994). Standard Catalog of World Paper Money: General Issues. Colin R. Bruce II and Neil Shafer (editors) (7th ed.). Krause Publications. ISBN 0-87341-207-9.

I haven't deleted date=1960.7 yet, but will do that once I fix all the existing transclusions. Ingrid 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that 1979 should be 1978, since we go by the date on the cover rather than the publication date (since for the later editions, it's called, e.g., 2001 SCWC, published in 2000). So, please use:

• SCWC date=1978 Krause, Chester L.; Clifford Mishler (1977). Unrecognized date. Please see Template:Numis cite SCWC for available dates.. Krause Publications. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)

and I will fix existing references then delete date=1979. Ingrid 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The 1979 edition is called the "1979 edition" on the cover!
Dove1950 21:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so it should definitely be date=1979. Do you or Chochopk think we should change the title? I'm thinking no, but could go either way. Ingrid 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

If I'm following this correctly, the 1979 edition of SCWC says "1979 edition" and "1790-1978" on the cover, and was actually published in 1979? If this is the case, then I think the parameter should be 1979, and the title displayed to the reader should be 1790-1978".... --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've just found the publication date (please realise this an old book that has seen better days): MCMLXXVIII. They were cheating with the date even then! Sorry if I mislead.
Dove1950 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to apologize to Dove for suspecting mis-referencing because of my lack of understanding of the older version. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apology completely unnecessary! If you made half the number of mistakes I make we'd all be in big trouble. I think we're nearly there with the templates now. Thanks to both Ingrid and Chochopk for sorting them out.
Dove1950 21:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do we still need SCWC 1900.1 (1801-1900). Anyone using it? I know I'm not. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nor me.
Dove1950 21:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't use it. If I'm the one who added it to the template though, it's because I saw it referenced somewhere. Ingrid 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Checking my contribs, I see it was from Argentine real. Ingrid 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Final thought (I hope): I just found a reference to SCWC 1980. When I googled the ISBN, I found 2 places referring to it as "Standard Catalog of World Coins: 1980 Edition". So, I used that, and put that in for 1979 as well. Let me know or change it back, if you think it should be different. Ingrid 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Currently, the articles say

peso → 1874 → venezolano → 1879 → bolívar.

But GFD, GFD data series and Excel file say

peso → 1873 (GFD)/ 1857 (excel) → venezolano → 1887 (all 3) → bolívar?? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The dates in the article are based on the coins as Venezuela's early banknotes are not listed in SCWPM. 1873 is plausible as it says "created", not introduced, but 1887 has to be wrong from the perspective of circulating currency. Perhaps financial institutions were slow to implement the change? This needs exploring just to be sure.
Dove1950 09:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I have questions about dates again. I believe you wrote the South Vietnamese đồng start in 1952 because of the Vietnam branch of the Institut d'Emission des Etats du Cambodge, du Laos et du Vietnam. My catalog, published in 1996, says that these notes, regardless of branch, were issued in 1953 and 54. In addition, do we want to consider these as FIC piastre? S. Vietnamese piastre? or S. Vietnamese dong? This may similar to the Anglo-Palestine Company notes. Were they Palestine pound or Israeli? That was discussed at here. For the Vietnamese instance, I'm more inclined to say that these are still FIC piastres for these reasons: The issuing body was the same for all 3 branches (kind of like the euro?). The design were almost identical. French Indochina says that "the federation lasted until 1954" --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another thing. Do you think it would be better of the unit in a coin or banknote table is written as symbol? These kind of tables are usually wide and IMHO, it'd be more concise if symbols are used when possible. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

My 1994 SCWPM says that the 1 piastre/đồng was issued in 1952 but I see that [9] gives the date as 1953. If that's what your more recent SCWPM says then we ought to change the date to 1953. This goes for the Cambodian riel and Lao kip. It appears to me that the piastre, riel, kip and đồng coexisted between 1953 and 1955, so it makes sense to mention the notes in both articles. The difference to the euro was that this was part of a process of divergence rather than convergence. Regarding the use of symbols, I avoid them in general as I find it clearer to write the full name. I agree their use in table saves space, though. I'm just concerned that being concise isn't necessarily being clear.
Dove1950 13:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just double checked my catalog again, and all dual denominated notes were issued in 1953 or 54. I will make the changes, including the succession boxes. Would you like to review afterward? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I have been looking back into the subject of the Gibraltarian real and have now learnt that what was known as a blanca was equal to 1/2 a maravedi (or 1/8 quarto). The maravedi in turn was equal to 1/4 ochavo (1/4 quarto) and an ochavo 1/2 quarto.

I don't have a copy of the Krause-Mischler catalogue; does it mention anything else about Gibraltarian coinage other than the tokens? Chris Buttigieg 12:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid not, at least not in the editions I have. Keep digging, though. This is one of the most useful currency articles on Wikipedia thanks to your efforts.
Dove1950 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

May I ask of something from you? I anticipate that I won't be able to edit as much as I'd like to in the near future so I need your help. When you create new articles, could you also do these:

• If the subdivision is one of the common unit for hundredth (cent, centavo, céntimo, centime, centesimo), wiki link to the subunit, and add the currency to the list of the subunit article.
• If the unit is a common name like franc or krone, link to the new article from the nav box that contains currencies of the same name
• Link to "Economy of somePlace", if exists.
• Put under Category:Economy of somePlace
• Link from somePlace or Economy of somePlace to the new currency article, if recent enough or will be circulating like the Greenlandic (sp?) krone.

The latter bullet points are to increase exposure of your articles outside of the currency domain. Thank you! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please stop messing up the currency articles without entering into any kind of discussion. Your moves of Turkish lira and East African shilling, followed by your overwrites of the redirect pages have made a mess of things by preventing a straightforward reversion, should your changes prove unacceptable. If you want to make these kinds of changes, you need to discuss things first.
Dove1950 15:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dove,

My moves were made from the point of view of an ordinary user browsing the encyclopedia. I typed in "Turkish Lira" to the search box, expecting to see the current currency known as Turkish Lira, and got shown the page for the old Turkish lira, which is no longer in circulation. Even a Google search for Turkish Lira gives the exchange rate of the new one "1 Turkish lira = 0.796876 U.S. dollars". Therefore neither of the two currencies is particularly a "primary" meaning of Turkish lira, so according to WP:DAB there should be no primary topic page, and the main page should be a disambiguation, allowing easy choice for users. I don't see anything controversial about that, but if you really think one or other is primary then go ahead and discuss it on the talk pages.

In the case of East African Shilling, I was simply splitting an article on two different topics into separate articles, which is also Wikipedia policy.

Cheers — SteveRwanda 15:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the swift reply. You've created a mess in the following ways. First, your changes cannot easily be reverted. Second, all links to Turkish lira and East African shilling which previously reached the correct pages now go to your disambigs. Third, in the case of Turkish new lira, this is a translation of the official name, not a term invented for Wikipedia. I hope you now appreciate the problems caused.
Dove1950 16:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi... To address each of your points:

1. Why do you want to revert the changes? I've explained the rationale for them, and as a casual browser of these topics on Wikipedia I found the Turkish lira thing confusing. If you think the old one is the primary and only meaning for "Turkish lira" then explain why and it can be discussed.
2. For Turkish lira I have already moved nearly all the links to piped links of the form Turkish lira, so the text of each page is unchanged but the link points to what is intended. Thus links to the redirect page are mostly talk pages etc (which I have not changed), and links to Turkish lira (old) are mostly articles. I have not yet done the same thing for East African shilling, but should do in the next 24 hours.
3. "Turkish new lira" may be the official name (or is it "New Turkish Lira"?), but that is intended as a temporary measure to avoid confusion on currency markets. In every day conversation, "Turkish lira" can easily refer to the new lira.

I'm sorry that I didn't discuss this anyway, but I've often found proposals go unanswered for days on Wikipedia, so if I feel something is right I often go for WP:BOLD. Then people can explain why it's not right afterwards, and we can have a discussion. SteveRwanda 17:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I don't think it matters too much what names the pages are under. I used to, but then I realized that complete consistency was not possible, under wikipedia's rules, and it all seemed to matter less. Steve's arguments seem reasonable to me. Even if his moves were wrong though, I think Dove could've chosen a nicer way to say it. If it is decided to revert, it just requires an admin to do it. It's really not that big of a deal. Ingrid 01:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

(I have taken the liberty of copying Dove's point from User talk:SteveRwanda). IMHO, there are two things to be discussed here.

1. The split itself

   Judging from Steve's user page and contrib, I guess he has relatively less experience in currency compared to the other editors here. This question is for Steve: There are times when a country plunged into severe hyperinflation such as the Yugoslav dinar. The currency gets rednominated#Redenomination several times. But the unit name remains the same. If it were completely up to you, Steve, what would you do with the Yugoslav dinar, the Russian ruble (for the sake of easier discussion, let's assume the Soviet Union = Russia), the Ghanaian cedi, and the Romanian leu?

   Hi ChoChoPK... As you say, I don't have the expertise of you guys in currencies. Most of my contributions concern Rwanda and eastern Africa. However, sometimes the perspective of an outsider or casual Wikipedia reader is useful, as they are the ones the encyclopedia is intended for. It looks like most of the articles you refer to do not fork when the currency is revalued, and to me that seems sensible, especially if it can happen multiple times as in Yugoslavia. As far as I can gather the essence of the currency is the same following revaluation, including its scope and equivalent market value, with only the value and official symbol changing, so if I were the sole editor of Wikipedia I would keep each one in a single article! East African shilling is an exception to this, however, as the old version and the new one are effectively unrelated, with a gap of 40 or more years without its existence at all. Here, two articles is more sensible. Cheers — SteveRwanda 09:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

   The numismatic project currently do not have any standing standard for this issue. However, there are other precedence like South Korean won (1945)/South Korean won and Old Taiwan dollar/New Taiwan dollar.

   While I must reluctantly agree that complete consistency is not possible on Wikipedia. This issue has been raised from time to time (e.g. User talk:Chochopk/Archive 4#Naming scheme). But no result has been produced. But that doesn't mean we don't try. I'm open to suggestions....

2. The process

   It is my humble opinion that an action of which the reversal action requires an admin must be discussed first. At the same time, I do find Dove sometimes expresses himself in a forceful way.

   --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

   OK, point taken.... I will tread more carefully in future. Incidentally if there's anything I can do around here to aid the currency project then let me know. I am in or near the zones of Rwandan franc, Kenyan shilling, Ugandan shilling, Tanzanian shilling and to a lesser extent Burundian franc and Congolese franc. Cheers — SteveRwanda 09:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was forceful because, having flagged up one mess, SteveRwanda went and did nearly the same thing again! At least SteveRwanda has fixed the links which were messed up but this was an entirely avoidable job. All that was needed was to add a line at the top of Turkish lira to point users immediately to Turkish new lira, rather than letting them read through the article a little way before discovering the link to the new lira article. Be bold by all means (forceful, even) but remember to leave your changes reversible. We've all probably made this kind of mistake in the past (I know I have) but it's important to have it clearly flagged up so as to avoid it in the future. I'm afraid the argument about "casual users" cuts little ice as it could equally be used to dumb down articles to avoid complex issues. I remain in favour of reverting both changes as I still feel we ought to try and get the article titles correct in as many cases as possible, even if a few ugly anomalies persist. Regarding the gap of 40 years between the two shillings, there are cases where currencies with bigger gaps between them are covered in the same article. Examples include Brazilian real and Ukrainian karbovanets
Dove1950 10:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree with Dove on this, the standard was and still is to treat different currencies of the same name in a single article, and there was no real need for a DAB page for the Turkish lira. —Nightstallion 15:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't dispute that - one article for Turkish lira seems best, but the situation as I found it was that Turkish lira referred only the old one, while Turkish new lira was for the new one. It didn't seem sensible when "Turkish lira" is the day-to-day term for both. I still maintain East African shilling should be separate... they are not related, as one was for the British empire in East Africa and the new one is for a block of modern African states, including some that were never in the British sphere. East African shilling might be a primary topic for the old one though. SteveRwanda 08:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dove and Nightstallion, are you proposing a complete revert to before Steve's edit? The two East African shilling may be separated for 40 years, for different set of political entities. But when the splif of Russian ruble and Soviet ruble was complete, I imagine that the Russian ruble article will contain currencies separated 70 years part, one of Imperial, and the other of Federation. Imperial Russia, at least at its latest state, contains much of the Soviet Union such as modern day Kazakhstan. What do you make of that Steve? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK I'm not going to argue this to death if consensus is against it, but to me the cases are not parallel, and I still support two articles for EAS, one for TRL. Russia, over the period you describe, was a single state of varying sizes and names, but always controlled from Moscow. In East Africa the first currency was issued and controlled by a government in London, while the new one will be controlled by a wholly new body based (probably) in Arusha. In fact the only reason it will be called shilling at all is that most of the individual states (though not now Burundi and Rwanda) already use a shilling in various forms, themselves named after the original EAS. If Kenya and Tanzania had chosen to come up with their own currency names at independence (as other British nations such as Ghana and Zambia did) we would not be seeing an East African shilling now. IMHO anyway! SteveRwanda 09:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Have you thought about writing some articles about these, especially in relation to the 1915-18 emergency issues of the Swakopmunder Buchhandlung, which are listed in the Pick Specialised Catalog quite wrongly under 'German South West Africa'? - (Numismaticman 23:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC))Reply

At the moment, these notes are alluded to (very briefly) in German South West African mark but I guess that you'd prefer them to be separated. Would an article called South West African mark be appropriate? If so, I'll get writing.
Dove1950

Someone have moved Japanese mon to Mon (Japanese currency). See Talk:Japanese mon. Thanks. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

And created Mon (currency), which is completely Japanese-centric, although etymologically speaking, the word comes from China. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

As you'll no doubt see, I've moved it back in the hope that the discussion can continue without any more "bold" moves. I agree with your assessment of Mon (currency). Any remedies?
Dove1950 12:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have some comments about the articles User:Numismaticman created. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#Recent addition of "banknotes of ..." and "postal orders of ..." articles. Thanks. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe very strongly that these should be written in the same way as they are written up in the Standard Catalog of World Paper Money, including capitalising the denominations. Can you please fix up the article Banknotes of the Swakopmund Bookshop (South West Africa), including putting in the 'P' catalogue numbers, and any other catalogue numbers? - (Numismaticman 11:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC))Reply

Regarding capitalization, this should only be used for denominations in languages which use capitals for all nouns (i.e., German). I haven't put in any catalogue numbers as my catalogue is rather old and some will doubtless have changed.
Dove1950 23:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now that User:Numismaticman has been blocked (many thanks for dealing with him) should we go through his creations and see if they ought to be removed? I'm particularly thinking about those which are just copied straight from a catalogue (like Banknotes of the Kingdom of Fiji) which could fall foul of copyright.
Dove1950 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. His writing style is just bad in so many ways. We can either raise a WP:CSD G12 for copyvio, WP:AFD for a less severe case, or rename to "Banknotes of someCurrency" if it's worth saving at all (Coins of the Fijian dollar is one example of Aidan Work's product). I have been extremely busy lately. So just do as you see fit, drop me a message, and I will participate any discussion you raise. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Let me start.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltese Mint —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chochopk (talk • contribs) 08:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you could lend a hand in investigate Pakistani Mint, that'd be great. I have no idea whether or not it should be deleted. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've moved Pakistani Mint to Lahore mint as I have some definite information about this mint.
Dove1950 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was modifying the first sentences of a few articles, like "The Bahamian dollar..." or "The Honduran lempira...". I just thought it's nice to be specific in the very first sentence, especially for the Bahamian dollar, which has a strong tie with the USD. Plus, it would match the actual title. And then I remember you prefer writing "The dollar...". So I'd like to check with you first before mass update. My rationale is that it's like biographic articles. Adam Smith says "Adam Smith FRSE was a Scottish moral philosopher...". And later, the article may say "Smith did this and that". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The reasons I'm against that turn of phrase are as follows. First, it implies that "Bahamian dollar" is the official name rather than a description, with the official name simply "dollar". An exception to this could be Hong Kong dollar, since this term actually appears on the banknotes. Second, it would create an opening sentence of "The Bahamian dollar is the currency of the Bahamas" which is a rather awkward way of putting things. Third, I've spent far too much time reverting such changes just to roll over on this issue :-). Seriously, though, we should be stressing the official name wherever possible.
Dove1950 15:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI -- see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#Odd definition style. Matt 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.53.193 (talk)

The Geneva franc standard was different from the French one.

The 20 Geneva franc coin was weighting 7.62 g at 750/..., the Napoleon 6.45 at 900/....

• Geneva franc was 0.381 (7.62/20) * .750 = 0,28575 g of pure gold
• FF (and CHF, LIT, BEF ...) was 0,3225 (6.45/20) * .900 = 0,29025

So when the Swiss franc was introduced the relationship between the 2 currencies was not at pair.

--Carlo Morino aka zi' Carlo 07:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can't argue with your maths. Moreover, a weight of 7.62g and a fineness of .750 for the 20 francs gives a gold standard of almost exactly 3500 francs = 1 kilogram pure gold. To be precise, such a standard would give a weight for the 20 francs of 7.61905g. Do you have the weight to three decimal places? Unfortunately, Krause & Mishler only give the weight to one decimal place. Against this is the information in [10] which clearly states that the Geneva franc was equal to the French franc. I think we need more information. It could be that the silver standard was more significant at the time. Do you know what weight and fineness the silver 5 and 10 francs were? Krause & Mishler don't give any information for these.
Dove1950 19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Leodgar Coraggioni (it: Leodegar Coraggioni) book give this data:

gold coins: 750/1000 Gold and 150/ Silber

10 und 5 Frank : 865 fein Silber

He writes too that gold and silver coins of year 1848 are to be considered more "Notmünzen" than "Courant-Münzen" and that were minted because of the French revolution. As you may see from K&M gold & silver coins were minted in Geneva only that year.

--Carlo Morino aka zi' Carlo 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Should that be .250 silver or was there .100 copper? If the gold and silver coins were emergency money, does that mean that the currency was equal to the French currency but the coins weren't struck to quite the "correct" weights?
Dove1950 21:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is probably right. --Carlo Morino aka zi' Carlo 13:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I used to live in the south-west of India. 20 paise coins and below were not accepted in shops, or by people, even if you had loads of them. The last time I remember 10 paise coins being used was in 1999. I used to go round my uncle's house to play with invalid coins, which even beggars rejected. I had thought that 20p and below coins were invalid in all of India until I saw the article Indian Rupee. Joshua Issac 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that the coins may still be valid (i.e., legal tender) but not accepted in shops. Such a situation wouldn't be unique and it doesn't justify the change you made to the article. Unless there's a specific law, applicable in Kerala or wherever, making these coins "invalid", the change needs to be reverted.
Dove1950 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reverted. Joshua Issac 00:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Two pages in Google cache:

[11] and [12] Joshua Issac 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

hi!

NONE of the links you added have information about the Cambodian Franc

Why thoughtlessly copy-paste the template? Maybe should remove it?

Pyvanet (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, they do have information relavent to this article. They mention the piastre, which was part of the franc coinage and they mention the use of the French franc, to which the Cambodian franc was equal. That there is no direct mention of Cambodia's own issue of coins is, in itself, relevant, since it implies they may have been relatively unimportant (c.f. the infobox). I assure you, I checked the contents of the links. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have removed the coin and banknote links.
Dove1950 (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can find a link in relation to these here; www.kolonialgeld.de.

It even contains some information about the banknotes that were issued by the Swakopmund Bookshop between 1916 and 1918 after becoming the South African-administered territory of South West Africa. You should read it. - (203.211.79.187 (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC))Reply

As you have shown an interest in creating/editing articles about Prince Edward Island, you are cordially invited to join WikiProject Prince Edward Island which has newly been created. SriMesh | talk 04:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know this was discussed a couple of years ago but, unfortunately, the discussion isn't on either of the current articles. In a nut shell, the names we're using have no connection to the actual currencies. Both were called the yuan. On New Taiwan dollar, the Chinese name is given as 新臺幣, 新台幣 or 臺幣. None of these characters appears on the coins and banknotes, where it's clearly called 圓. I'm sure you're aware of this but it really needs fixing. The best solution would be a single article called Taiwanese yuan, with the name New Taiwan dollar prominant so as to ensure recognition. It'll probably ruffle feathers so I thought I'd sound you out before starting work.
Dove1950 (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your observation is correct. Before I give a linguistic distinction on the subject of currencies, let me give the dictionary definitions first

• 新 new
• 臺 "Tai", short for Taiwan
• 幣 currency
• 圓 yuan, a unit of currency

But for Chinese speakers, there is a distinction between a currency unit and a currency (system). The following hypothetical dialog is translated to English almost word by word (at least the currency related words)

• A: It will cost you 20 yuan
• B: What kind of currency? (幣 "bi")
• A: Taiwanese currency (臺幣 "Tai bi"), uh, I mean Hong Kong currency (港幣 "Gang bi" (Gang = Kong = 港))

B may or may not say "What kind of yuan". But it's far more common to say "currency". A would almost always answer with "Taiwanese currency", and not "Taiwanese yuan".

In English, the unit is also the synonym for the currency system, which is not the case in Chinese

Back to your question, plus a few follow up that I make up

• Article name for the Taiwanese currency on the English Wikipedia.

If I ran the government, and if I were Jimbo, I would rename everything yuan. See also Chinese yuan#Connection with dollar. But expect resistance because "New Taiwan dollar" is the "common name".

• Merge "Old" and "New"?

Expect technical difficulty with interwiki because both "New Taiwan dollar" and "Old Taiwan dollar" are both old enough to have many iw articles. And I am sad to see the infobox for OTD to go away. I spent quite some time one it. =)

• The local name in the infobox.

Gee... this is a tough one. The article is clearly talking about the currency, not a unit of that currency. Either 臺幣 or 臺圓 is going to introduce confusion to readers unaware of the linguistic detail described above. A foot note perhaps? Anyway, any solution must apply to the 4 Chinese speaking currencies (or 4+1, 1 being SGD?) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I knew it was going to be complicated, so thanks for the background. I certainly don't want to remove your work on the infobox unless it's really necessary. The overlap between "currency" and "currency unit" is a pain but one that has to be dealt with somehow. Some possible solutions:

• In principle, we could follow the mainland article and call it Taiwanese bi but I don't fancy that much.
• Another route would be to replace dollar with yuan. At least that's accurate as dollar has never been a name used for the currency.
• A third route would be to simply write Taiwanese yuan, link it to the existing articles and then reroute the most important interwikis to Taiwanese yuan. It's a bit underhand but it might be the easiest route.

One thing I'm not sure I agree on is your idea that "any solution must apply to the 4 Chinese speaking currencies (or 4+1, 1 being SGD?)". Given the differences in written Chinese between Taiwan and the mainland, there are at least some differences that will be necessary. Also (and maybe I'm taking you too literally), I'm not renaming Hong Kong dollar or Macanese pataca for all the tea, renminbi or yuan in China!
Dove1950 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Taiwanese bi is too weird. I don't expect any other editor would agree. Yuan is OK. "Yuan" was actually printed on banknotes in the 50s. And then English is removed all together. You're right about HKD, MOP, and SGD. I wasn't thinking clearly. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

So are we going to have one Taiwanese yuan article or Taiwanese yuan and Taiwanese new yuan? I prefer a single article. Perhaps we could start a new infobox for old currencies when they are within larger articles? While you're thinking about Chinese currencies, I'd appreciate a hand over Chinese renminbi. I think I've forced a showdown on this one but it's only worth it if everyone with some common sense chips in.
Dove1950 (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know you spend a lot of time improving the articles. Eventually, we'd like to perfect currency articles like country articles. When we get there one day, I know you that you are a key contributor toward that. But please review this edit of yours. The changes are just too long to be reviewed. Wiki's diff functionality isn't perfect. If you rearrange with no real content change, editors can use the "find" function of their browsers to make sure that the moved contents have not been modified. If you change the wording within a sentence, within a paragraph, wiki's diff can show that nicely. But it is when rearranging and editing together that make things much difficult. I'm asking you a favor, please split your edits to at least 2 parts, rearranging and editing. I can't say my motive is completely selfless, but it does benefit everyone. Thanks! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

As I'm sure you're aware, the Chinese renminbi / renminbi debate rumbles on. It could really benefit from your insight. Some of the comments beggar belief and I could frankly do with some assistance if you can spare the time. Once we've got that article sorted, we can return to the Taiwanese question.
Dove1950 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am aware. Both sides presented their cases. And I decided not to pitch in, knowing that under the current situation, the article in question will remain "Renminbi". There are exceptions to the standing naming convention (with reasons, of course). Pound sterling is one. Euro is not called Eurozone euro. But I don't want to speak against you or Nightstallion outright. I hope you understand. Right now, if I have any time, I will concentrate on Cypriot pound and Maltese lira. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Your claims about the Mexican Peso are obviously false to anyone who looks at them. You claim that the US began using the Mexican peso in 1785, but this is impossible because it did not exist. Mexico, did not exist. In 1785 it was part of Spain. Mexico did not exist as a country officially until 1821, and didn't even declare independence until 1813.

The Spanish Dollar was in fact the currency of the Spanish empire, and thus of pre-independence territories which would become Mexico. Please see the following:

Today the term peso is sometimes used interchangeably to include the historic Spanish eight real coin. This is primarily because pesos were of similar weight and diameter to the eight real coin. However, the term peso did not appear on Spanish coinage until 1864, and it is more accurate to refer to the older coinage as the eight real coin, which was also called the Spanish dollar or colloquially "a piece of eight."

Spanish Dollar.

Once again, cease vandalizing Wikipedia by adding blatantly false information. There is no discussion necessary here, you are wrong as proven by ALL reliable sources. 74.132.178.84 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

hey Dove, im Egyptian and it is Qirsh in Standard arabic, e'irsh in Cairene Arabic and Girsh in Saidi Arabic... but it is always refered to as Qirsh as a unifing form of the Arabic Dialects...

--Arab League User (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Geneih is refered to as Genieh since it comes from the English word Geneh (not sure how it is spelled), anways its that British colonial coin used back then...

Arab League User (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have no other identities, any continued attempts by you to assert otherwise will be construed as a personal attack and reported immediately. Kindly discuss items instead of calling names. -- Jolliette Alice Bessette,   -- 00:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The fellow is wikistalking me. I do not have multiple identities. Why would I revert my own edits? -- Jolliette Alice Bessette,   -- 14:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It didn't. I'll note you've been wikistalking me too, which I don't appreciate. -- Jolliette Alice Bessette,   -- 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You have previously contributed to the discussion at WT:WikiProject Numismatics. Please review a new proposal here and comment if you care. — AjaxSmack 01:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your reliance on ad hominem is not becoming to you. I don't accuse you of fraud, but I note that your edits are false, and you continue adding them to Wikipedia. I am sure you mean well, but you are damaging Wikipedia. -- Jolliette Alice Bessette,   -- 23:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You have previously participated in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style. If you care, please go here to register your opinion on two proposals for currency naming guidelines. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 03:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Articles shouldn't be name by its acoustic pronunciation, Wikipedia isn't a phonetics dictionary. E.g. an article about 'Knife' shouldn't be named 'nife'. As in the discussion 'gineih' is just a way to pronounce the word in slang Arabic but not a real word in Egyptian English, contrary to Lira in Lebanon where 'Lira' is a real dictionary word. --Notopia (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please do not move articles back to the original title following a requested move discussion just because you don't agree with the consensus. Doing so is disruptive, and you risk being blocked. Neıl ☎ 08:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• And since you've wasted a number of editor's time by completely ignoring the administrator above, and reverting the changes again, I'll reinforce his warning and say that if you disrupt these pages again you will be blocked. Black Kite 22:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• • It's only because Black Kite has left you a warning that I have not blocked you for 24 hours. Again, Dove1950, there was consensus for these moves. I am sure you think you're right, but so does everyone else. The consensus was to move those articles to the common English name. Now, please, do not move another article following a Requested Move discussion you don't agree with, or you will be blocked. You have had enough warnings now. Neıl ☎ 10:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dove1950, do you know whether Mexico claims copyright over all images of its coins? This seems to vary by country. Right now, a lot of the images at Mexican peso are in danger of being deleted. If Mexico does claim copyright, we may still be able to save them with a fair use rationale; either way, it would be a shame to lose them. Although these may not be your images originally, you are very knowledgeable about coins, so I thought you might have more information. Thanks. --Reuben (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dove1950, I've replied to your comment on my talk page at the Numismatics guidelines talk page. Bathrobe (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw you started this article and wanted to ask if you could maybe provide a source for this Sumatran dollar? I have some doubts on wheter or not there actually was a Sumatran dollar but maybe you take these doubts away and add to my knowledge? ;-) Thanks in advance, Martijn ^→!?← 14:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (Martijn (on nl.wikipedia.org))Reply

• If I may add my two (dollar) cents to this: an equivalent of the article has now appeared in the Dutch Wikipedia, its title being Sumatra Dollar. Now in Dutch we have no word "Dollar", and it might be supposed that this is a literal borrowing from the en: article. Specifically: would you happen to know whether there ever was a Sumatran coin with the name daalder (which is a Dutch word)? Best regards, Bessel Dekker (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • My source for what I've written is:
    Krause, Chester L.; Clifford Mishler (1978). Standard Catalog of World Coins: 1979 Edition. Colin R. Bruce II (senior editor) (5th ed.). Krause Publications. ISBN 0873410203.
    in which the ½ dollar coin is pictured. At the time of the coins' issuance, Sumatra was a British territory, hence the use of "dollar" rather than "daalder" or similar. There seems to have been no issuance of this currency by the Dutch authorities. I'll expand the article to make things a bit clearer.
    Dove1950 (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks a lot! Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I think that we should remove article to "Konvertibilna marka" because officially it is name of currency. Here in BIH we use this name or shorter "marka".

--Čikić Dragan (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

We have a policy of including the name of the country in the article name for the purpose of clarity. The article makes it clear what the official name is (at least it does now I've corrected it).
Dove1950 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is good that I've first consulted somebody. So, there should be a least redirection page named "Кonvertibilna marka". There is now redirection page "Convertibile mark". " Please could you do it for me/us?

--Čikić Dragan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's done. For future reference, the "command" is #REDIRECT[[Bosnia and Herzegovina konvertibilna marka]].
Dove1950 (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I changed the link from Bizone. The text read "bizone" but the link took one to trizone then redirected to bizone. A pointless redirect. There is no article for trizone the link should be a direct bizone link. --Brideshead (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have responded in the talk page of Talk:Chinese yuan with regards to the merge proposal. Thank you for the reply. Heilme (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You have previously participated in discussions on use of English in currency names at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style. If you care, please discuss a resolution of related titleing issue at Talk:Chinese wén. — AjaxSmack 01:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I saw you made some great articles about currencys, can you help me with Franga? --Vinie007 12:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ghanaian pound, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Polish rouble is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish rouble until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply