Template talk:Non-euro currencies of the European Union

message: Swedish krona has to be presented in this list. Sweden is obliged to join Eurozone in future. The case is that the moment of joining Sweden could define itself. No time limits are given - it may be 1, 5 or 50 years. But that will happen at one moment. And in template the date (even approximative) is not written. So SEK should be presented in this template, as no other currency in the world is obliged to join Eurozone. But SEK is. That is the difference. --Dima1 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "On track to be migrated" isn't the same thing as "obliged to migrate", though.
A currency may be obliged to join the euro without the government making any attempts to fullfill the criteria for joining (cf. Sweden). In that case it's not currently on track to be migrated. However, because of EU treaties, it will need to become on track to be migrated at some point in the future.
A currency may be on track to be migrated while at the same time being ineligible to be migrated. For example, the Bulgarian government seemed to make some efforts to fullfill the convergence criteria even before Bulgaria joined the EU. At some point with bad relations with Russia, the dictator of Belarus suggested that Belarus might join the EU and adopt the euro. If he was serious when saying so, then the Belarussian currency temporarily was on track to be migrated. Any currency could join in the Montenegrin/Kosovar way of joining. In that case, the currency would be on track to be migrated despite not being mentioned in any EU treaty whatsoever.
None of the references given states that SEK currently is on track to be migrated. They only state that SEK currently is obliged to join the euro at some point in the future, and that's not quite the same thing. "Some point in the future" can be delayed indefinitely, and so in reality SEK never needs to become on track to be migrated. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note ISK. People in Iceland have suggested that ISK might join EUR unilaterally. Should ISK be mentioned in this list? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEK 

message: I think that we should have an alphabetical order in this table. To avoid futher moving or changing the sequence of all countries. --Dima1 (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NO. It should be as it is. The way of adoption the EURO.--Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, right now it doesn't appear to be in any order.  Denmark, which may well not join the eurozone at all (if the referendum result is "no") comes before two countries whose dates are 2014 or later, and then Latvia comes after that with a date of 2012 or later.  Alphabetical would make things a lot easier to find and would make quite a lot of sense given how vague a lot of the dates are. Pfainuk talk 17:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  The way of the euro adoption is a subject of change. So the sequence like it is now is not final. I think alphabetical order is better, also we have dates of adoption. Who want can see the order by this dates. --Dima1 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Why? That's odd, one is interested to see the countries who will join sooner and not the alphabetical order of them. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree, chronological order based on expected date of accession is clearly the way to go. —Gabbe (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No wait, of course: marking the class="wikitable sortable" is obviously the best solution. Fixed.—Gabbe (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: Just passing and I understand the template but it seems to be contradicting itself by suggesting that the euro currency no longer "remains". Should the title be altered to state "Non-euro currencies remaining in the European Union"? Many editors/readers will not live in the EU and the current title might lead to confusion. --➨♀♂Candlewicke  ST   18:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and have moved it. Pfainuk talk 18:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Double redirects here: Template talk:Euro adoption future
Can this be changed into a single redirect only? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There appear to be no double redirects now. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double redirect 

message: There's a media file "Example.ogg" at the end of this template which ends up in all articles using the template. Should this really be there? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example.ogg 

message: Thank you all for coming together to what I believe is a way more informative template.  I was wondering if all information we needed is currently captured; if this is the final template we need to work in fixing other articles that refer to it directly or indirectly, in order to have consistency across Wikipedia. If anyone has any other opinion please speak now. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We are approaching, the final version.. we'll see. Let the people see it, read it, re-think it. We have to have patience. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant to say is that there is at least 10 other articles that need to be changed based on what we all have come up to the conclusion here. Anyway, is a long weekend over here, I will work in the other articles from Tuesday. I am simply trying to fix the contradictory messages that those article and this template are saying. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final version? 

message: Is it worth putting ERM II adoption date in here too, as this is important to understand the likely adoption date. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ERM II Date 

message: The syntax on this page is far too complex for the relatively simple job we are wanting it to do. All this does it make it harder for people to edit. Can someone take a knife to it please? 155.192.161.120 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax too complex