Talk:Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination

message: Are they missing maybe the sun to round this up? (Althought it is not a planet) And either Pluto (for the old times when we said it was) or the moon (to give the sun a mate)? Or which numbers are missing?Undead Herle King (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ten number, 8 planets?

message: A tag has been placed on :Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Blatant publicity stunt by company, not notable, not encyclopedic.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 
Until there is an actual physical currency traded by real people, rather than just a publicity press release, I think giving this an encyclopedia article is a bit premature. Nairebis 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why you or anyone would think that this article is a publicity stunt by the company since none of the contributions by Wikipedians who have created/edited this article indicate a specific company's employee account. Virtlink 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about the product, not the Wikipedia article. I don't think just issuing a press release about an absurd product ought to merit inclusion in an encyclopia. I don't know if the company themselves created the Wikipedia article, and I don't think it really matters. The point is that the product is a publicity stunt, until such time they release a product AND we actually have people in space in a place where an economy actually exists to use this fake money. Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with putting a note about this on the company's wikipedia page, since they themselves are a major and notable company. But IMO the product itself is not notable enough to merit its own page. Nairebis 22:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, please give me a day before you do anything. I've got a presentation to make and I'm so far into the night right now that I'm swaying. Deleting an article because those who would speak in its favor were temporarily busy... would work, but you wouldn't feel proud of yourself the next day. :P --Kizor 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to self, some cool terminology here. --Kizor 00:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't get the whole point.  It costs money to manufacture this bauble and it has no purpose.  How do they make back their manufacturing costs?  Is it approved as a medium of exchange?  And, if so, by whom?  By what authority?  How was the exchange rate arrived at if it is not used in trade?  If it is truly "intergalactic", can I spend it on Earth (we are part of a galaxy, aren't we)?  Alternately, with nowhere to spend it and nowhere that we're likely to be able to spend it in the next two decades or more, what is it good for?  Where would the stores be where I could spend it?  If there ever is a place to spend such currency, will this money still be around?  The whole thing is an utterly ludicrous stunt!  Can I dream up an intergalactic ID card and get an article in the Wikipedia?  Or, more importantly, can I mint my own competing currency?? Apparently the only criterium is that I make something that looks somewhat like money and then simply declare it to be the legal tender of the universe.  Wow!  What a racket! Eromlignod 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And if it's "intergalactic" why do its designs show the planets of only one solar system within only one galaxy?  —Tamfang 17:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that this article ought to be deleted.  If this was a currency approved by some international consortium or had a certain degree of practicality to it (scaled values instead of 1-10..., imminent use by space travelers ) then perhaps it would be worth keeping.  I'm not sure why this was listed on the front page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.26.139 (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not state that the currency will be used, it states what it was created for, and the information is backed up by multiple reliable, widely respected sources, explaining that it was developed in response to a future need. Wikipedia is not just for things that are real, or currently in use. There are articles on hoaxes, theories, and all types of fiction. If this currency is never used, it is still of historical interest as being the first currency ever created with the design towards space tourism. Ariel♥Gold 19:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I can declare my product--any toy, household device, undergarment, etc.--as "for intergalactic use" and Wikipedia will allow an entry, include it under their "Space Tourism" heading, and feature it in their "Did you know..." main-page highlights?  Now there's some cheap advertising!  Where do we draw the line?  This product is nonsense!  It has no legitimacy whatsoever.  A company can't simply declare their trinkets as cosmic lucre and that makes it so.  This junk has no more interstellar value than Monopoly money!Eromlignod 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your product were written up by multiple, reliable, third-party sources, such as the BBC, Associated Press, etc., then it would most likely be notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. As for the "Did you know" on the front page, those have criteria of their own for inclusion. And, as the article states, this company is working with the Bank of England to register it as legal currency. The article is not about what will become, but what is. It is a form of currency that was created with an eye on future need, and it is covered by reliable sources. Ariel♥Gold 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC0
I think it discredits wikipedia to give coverage to this, even if it is a media sensation, the article needs to speak to facts and not talk about fictional future events in the past tense.
(Taucetiman 21:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Going by that criteria, hundreds of thousands of articles on fictional items or events, hoaxes, theories, and other items that are not "facts" would have to be deleted. The article does speak to facts, all of them. The fact of why it was created, what it is made of, what possible uses it has, etc., all those things are facts, backed by reliable sources. There is nothing that states Wikipedia articles must be real, just that they are interesting, covered by multiple reliable sources, and written in a neutral tone. This article is all of those things. And, as I said before, regardless of whether a "space currency" is ever even needed, historically this item is notable as being the first such item created. Ariel♥Gold 21:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CSD

message: Regardless of whether this currency ever becomes a reality, the fact is, it does exist, it is covered by reliable sources, and it was created for the purposes stated. I have re-written the article with multiple reliable sources and formatted it per the manual of style, and added the appropriate space tourism navigation template. This is not a hoax, it is not a PR stunt, it is a company taking a concept and anticipating a future need, and is quite appropriate for an entry in Wikipedia. Kizor, I have added the Wired blog entry to external links. (Blogs are not generally reliable sources, so it isn't used as a reference.) Ariel♥Gold 06:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, thanks. --Kizor 11:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an totally obvious press stunt, to draw attention to that firms other activities (apart from producing "useless space money", quote from the link in the section above). Unfortunately a rather successful one I might ad. It needs to be removed from the space tourism navigation bar, since that actually documents real efforts in space tourism. --Xeeron 17:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The real deal

message: So teflon is not a "chemical"??  Ha ha.  Over at Citizendium someone began the article about water by saying it's a commonly occurring element.  I thought that could be taken to mean a chemical element, so I changed it to "stubstance", so then the original author changed it to say water is a "non-chemical element".  How confused can you get?  Then I changed it to say that water is a commonly occurring chemical compound.  So it stands, last time I checked.  That form of superstitious thinking that finds a distinction between chemicals and allegedly "non-chemical" substances never states a definition of either. Michael Hardy 13:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point. Perhaps a qualification of "chemical compounds not harmful to space equipment or people", or some such may be helpful? Ariel♥Gold 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the word "harmful" Mad031683 15:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No chemicals? 

message: From the teflon wikipedia page:
"While PTFE itself is chemically inert and non-toxic, it begins to deteriorate after the temperature of cookware reaches about 460 °F (237 °C), and decompose above 660 °F (350 °C).[citation needed] These degradation products can be lethal to birds, and can cause flu-like symptoms in humans"  Not harmful? Puh-leeze... >.< Davidl9999 19:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any "currency" used by space tourists in the future, would not be exposed to that kind of temperature, these are not things that are flying outside a vehicle or structure, they are items that would be used in controlled temperature environments. Ariel♥Gold 19:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably also worth pointing out that anything at 237 °C is going to be harmful to humans. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No harmful chemicals? 

message: I am a Physics student at Leicester University, and I have Prof. Fraser as one of my lecturers. He is adamant he has nothing to do with the QUID and the BBC falsely attributed a quote from someone else to him.
Unfortunetly, I can't seem to find anywhere on the Internet where he has written this down. So, I'm posting as an anonymous user from a Leicester uni computer so that you can see where I am from my IP address (My account is User:Damburger. Hopefully this is enough to have it removed as Prof. Fraser (understandably IMHO) considers association with this thing to be damaging to him. 143.210.8.57 13:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unfortunately, no that's not going to verify your claim. Wikipedia uses reliable sources to back up the statements, and the BBC is most certainly a reliable source. If the professor seeks to have the issue cleared up, the best thing would be fore him to contact the original publishers of the article in question (The BBC) and request they publish a retraction. I'm sure you understand that there are thousands of computer users in your area, and no possible way to confirm what you say is true. I'm not saying it is not, I'm simply explaining Wikipedia policy. Ariel♥Gold 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, that isn't enough to confirm your statement. It's not that we won't act on it, Damburger, but can't. A public statement at Prof. Fraser's website or equivalent, if available, would certainly be sufficient. I'm looking into one other option. --Kizor 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting. Well, neither this article, nor the original BBC source puts his comment in a negative light, so I personally don't see any issue with it remaining, until it can be verified that he wasn't the person who said the quote, or BBC prints a retraction. Ariel♥Gold 17:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, soooo, where are we on this? Maury (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, with no indication that the professor was misquoted, including on the site of the university itself, I don't see why we'd have a problem here. Do you?Thanks for improving the article way back when, ArielGold. I generally tend to have troule getting things done, and this autumn's been particularily bad for pretty personal but still uninteresting reasons. --Kizor (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquote 

message: I have re-worded the article in several places, the intro now reads: "The Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination, called the 'Quid', is a recently created prototype for a possible future type of currency for use by space tourists.", and I reworded the "Conversion rate" section to read: "but since it is an experimental prototype, the Quid is not accepted in any current market, cannot be purchased, and therefore has no value.", as well as re-worded other passages to add the words "possible form of currency", to emphasize that it is nothing more than experimental. Is that helpful? Ariel♥Gold 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think so --Hypo Mix (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording changes

message: A photo showing a common object for scale would be helpful. 75.82.208.152 16:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as the photos are not copyright free, and can only be used as a fair use image, unless those who put out the original photos do something like that, it is unlikely to happen. It would be interesting to know how large they are, though, I agree. Ariel♥Gold 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick google search reveals that there is another photo out in the wild, including a common object (the human hand holding the plastic), e.g. this link over here. That would make a better image for the article. --Xeeron (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mention of size/scale in the body of the article would be nice, too.Rickremember (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  second that --Hypo Mix (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: :Image:Quid-spaceage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ariel♥Gold 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Quid-spaceage.jpg

message: Why do you need a plastic chip for space money if you could just use paper money?
Quids take up a lot of space and are heavy. Paper money can be folded up. I dont see banknotes being very dangerous in space, or being damaged or anything. What? are papercuts to much of a risk? (oh, and dont delete the article. Some idiots like me find junk like this interesting)
T.Neo (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any fair way we can include some pieces about why this is likely a useless idea? Sure, credit cards can be demagnetized, but last time I looked the space programs were sending lots of digital memory into space. Also, we're sending gigabytes of data to and from probes (mostly from) every day all across our solar system. A little banking info isn't going to take much in the way of communication resources. Should humans ever find themselves traveling beyond the moon in great numbers were currency is useful in small trades, then a 'space bank' wouldn't be hard to setup, wiring money to off planet accounts for your trip, and using biometric ID for transactions on the local accounts. And if all that fails, again, what is wrong with 'paper' money, the kind they use in Australia that is a plastic and can't be easily torn or burnt? --Talroth (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes but the plastic contains chemicals that they didn't want in space --Hypo Mix (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why couldn't other chemicals be used instead? T.Neo (talk  contribs review me ) 21:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  barring papercuts... 

message: What is this sentence even supposed to mean? "Because of difficulties with using common forms of currency in space, cash or credit cards would not be of practical use in space." Isn't that a bit circular? Common forms of currency can't be used in space because there are problems with using it in space...... —Memotype::T 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  circular reasoning / unexplained conclusions. 

message: The QUID was a vital marketing campaign paid for by Travelex and run by talkPR. I think anyone could see that, but as you can see in the threads above a very odd situation broke out where the press releases were considered to be "real enough" to inflate this mythical money into reality. Well it took me a while, but I now have direct statements by two people, on either end of the story, that demonstrate that this was purely an advertisement. One of these was in e-mail form, and I am checking it into OORTs. A re-write is in progress.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed/reworded a few things, to keep in policy with WP:N. Otherwise, as long as it went through OTRS, I have no objections to adding the "viral marketing" info. However, I do think that completely gutting the article was not the best way to go about this. The fact is, whether it be in 20 years, or 200, currency in space may become a reality, and if there are sources that discuss this, why not have that be part of the article? The BBC article is not a reprint of the PR, and is from a respected news agency, so I personally don't see why the entire history section was completely removed, it had nothing to do with the press release, but gave background on why someone, anyone, may want to create a form of currency for space. *shrug* Ariel♥Gold 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think this is excellent reasoning for someone to create an article on Space currency with a complete discussion of the issues there. But the QUID is an ad campaign, and nothing more. We owe it to the readers to make this perfectly clear. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that would be a better idea, to create that new article, and redirect this to a section on that article. Not a bad idea. Ariel♥Gold 00:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Sounds interesting, but what is there to be said about space currency other than it's cash... in... SPAAAAACE? Chemicals? Interplanetary banking protocols? Protecting your VISA against cosmic rays? Research? The question's earnest, this would be nice to have. --Kizor 13:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before anyone objects... 

message: That currency sounds like you could counterfeit it easily, because I don't see any protection methods. iPadFanboy 14:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easy counterfeit? 

message: This was just a one-off advertising campaign, I guess it might merit a sentence or two under the travelex group's article. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mGrLAu4A to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2092.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified