Talk:Euro/Archive 3

message: I reverted the edits done by 84.136.136.17. The edit changed all references about euros into euro. I'm not going to take a position in that debate, and I would not have done the reversion, had it not been for the fact that it also deleted the reference to the style guide. That made the edit look PPOV to me. Bfg 11:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for reverting. It was certainly a non-good-faith edit (including deletion of the reference to my own website as well as to the Eu English style guide), and from a user with no other edits too. Just goes to show what a mess the lack of coordinated language planning and the ridiculous broadcasting of the bogus plurals by RTÉ continues to be. Evertype 12:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just like to clarify that the deletion of the reference to your website had no influence on my decission to revert the article. The sole influence was the deletion of the reference to the style guide, alongside with changing all the occurences of euros into euro. As you are a participant in an ongoing discussion concerning the correct spelling of the currency denominator in English, it could be raised questions as to wether it is apropriate to link to your website on that issue. While the discussion is interesting, I deliberately choose to have no opinion, especially since English is not my native tongue. Bfg 18:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should like to point out two things. First, it was not I who put the link to my own website on this article. Someone else did that, as far as I can tell even a good while before I became active on the Wikipedia. Second, I do consider the deletion of the Style Guide link worse than the link to my own pages. ;-) In any case, my passionate fervour for the True Plural of Euro (that is, the natural English plural used by all speakers of English except for those led astray by RTÉ (and hence by the Fianna Fáil Finance Minister of the day) will doubtless continue unabated. Evertype 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The history proves it by the way. The link to my webpage on the Euro and standardization was [2003-08-01] and my first edit to this page was [2004-04-11]. Evertype 20:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Euro/Euros - Non good faith editing

message: "Recently people start to write more often 3,75€ in France, Portugal, Spain and sometimes in Belgium. However, the official writing is € 3,25 in the entire E.U."
I think that (for example) Finland should be added to this list, as they have written the euro sign after the numbers ever since the euros were introduced (mainly because the markka "mk" was also written after the number). Are there other countries (that are not mentioned above) that write it like that? [anon]
:then please do! --Red King 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Euro sign position

message: --Greg 20:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current rules on the reproduction of euro notes was published here in the Official Journal of the European Union in March 2003. The legal authority for the rules is Article 106(1) of the Treaty Establishing the European Union (the Maastricht Treaty), and Article 16 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, which will have been restated in the national laws of all the member states. -- Arwel (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright?  How is copying blocked? 

message: I am uncomfortable with this change to a featured article having been made without discussion. I suggest it be put back. Evertype 15:37, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
*there are some people, in wikipedia, that constantly dismantle good articles. This is the major problem in EN wikipedia, it seems a disease of some sort. -Pedro 16:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the euro sign to another article 

message: Should this be mentioned in the article? If so, in what form? Nightstallion 18:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information to mention (?) 

message: I may just be stupid but I can't see any mentioning of the growth and stability pact which sets out the rules of the Euro, it's been in the news alot lately so I really think it deserves a mention somewhere (there are a lot of articles on the euro in a number of places) -- Joolz 14:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Stability and Growth Pact sets out the rules of Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union. It's mostly about price stability (inflation) - there is no formal link with the euro (either in the rules or via institutions like the ECB); and given the number of influences on the value of the currency, only a tenuous informal one via the money supply. It's mostly there because in the early 90s the Germans were worried about the Italians spending too much and driving interest rates up and the euro down - but the limits (3% GDP etc) are arbitrary and absolute, rather than related to interest/currency rates. Rd232 14:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a valid question, so I've added a "See Also" link to Stability and Growth Pact --Red King 21:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I feel rather silly for chcking 'growth and stability' and not 'stability and growth'. Just because there's "no formal" link doesn't mean it isn't important for an article on the Euro. -- Joolz 17:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Common mistake, and doesn't matter (but the design certainly prioritises stability; "growth" was added to the name as a kind of reassuring afterthought). Certainly worth a See Also link from Euro. Rd232 22:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Growth and stability pact?

message: The assertion that the common side is the obverse side  and the national side is the reverse has been here for some time. This seemed to me to be perverse, when this would be at odds with at least 2000 years of custom and practice.  So I checked the European Central Bank web site (www.ecb.int) and find that the terms "national side" and "common side" are general used - presumably for Plain English reasons of clarity.  However, trusty Google comes to my aid and finds a legal document (para 8) that says this prohibition in Article 2(c) of the proposed regulation regarding medals and tokens bearing any design on their surface that is ‘similar to any of the national obverse designs or to the common reverse face of euro coins.  So the article has been wrong for a long time.  I've corrected it, replacing the numismatic terms with the clear English terms, but maybe a foot-note for numismatists might be helpful? --Red King 11:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Obverse/Reverse designations

message: wouldt it be nice if someone use the twelve national sides of the currency (1 euro coins) and merge it into one picture (maybe in a circle), and put in this article? -Pedro 15:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More PICs - the national side

message: Does anyone else think that the second sentence, while true, important, probably necessary in the first paragraph, and flowing well from the first sentence, has broken up the flow between the first sentence and what is now the third?  As of now, the use of the pronoun "it" seems abrupt and not immediately obvious, because the previous sentence refers to euro coins rather than the euro itself. LeoO3 05:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break in flow 

message: While the €1 coin is arguably the most iconic symbol of the euro next to the euro symbol itself, I disagree with TheManWithoutAPast's recent reversal of the order of the euro coins and notes pictures at the top of the article which placed the coins on top, making them the first picture seen by visitors.  Because euro coins come in both euro and euro cent denominations, and because the numbers showing the euro coin value are the same for borh the euro and euro cent coins, it's not immediately clear for someone unfamiliar with the currency that the 10¢, 20¢, and 50¢ gold-colored coins are not €10, €20, and €50 gold coins.
By contrast, the notes have no such denominational ambiguity amongst themselves.  Furthermore, when they are placed above and the coins below, it becomes more likely in the mind of a visitor that the coins are less valuable than the notes, making the situation clearer.  And having already seen the €10, €20, and €50 notes and (however rapidly) establishing them in his mind as what euro currency in that amount is, he will be more likely to see the euro coins with those numbers as representing euro cents.
Put simply, in my view, the change was unnecessary, and likely to be more confusing, than the previous arrangement. I propose switching the order back.  LeoO3 00:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with your analysis. --Red King 22:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coin / note picture order reversal 

message: someone reverted me saying that my statement that windows-1252 was likely to be the least disruptive option to switch to was "advertising microsoft"
lets spell out the options in detail here
*Unicode (most likely utf-8)
**This is a possible choice and certainly the best long term but switching to it is disruptive as it has no little resemblence to what was being used before.
*ISO-8859-15
**Certainly a possible choice but it throws away a lot of usefull symbols.
*ISO-8859-16
**Again possible but it has almost no symbols at all and isn't that close to the latin variants even for characters with diacritics.
*Windows-1252
**Provided your application doesn't use the C1 control codes (which afaict apart from dumb terminals few do) this is by far the least disruptive option to switch to. all the exiting printable characters stay in the exact same places and yet the holes in ISO-8859-1 are filled in, its a win-win.
**It should also be noted that most browsers treat ISO-8859-1 as synonomous with windows-1252. Thats why we could get away with using characters from it directly in the wikitext before the switch to utf-8.
: Let's be clear.  All the vendors have moved to Unicode in the current versions of their OSs. The above material refers to temporary work-arounds.  Microsoft did it one way, Apple did it another, Nokia did it a third.  The implementations were not compatible. All were destructive to the previous use of that position, which varied in its disruptiveness.  The old 255 "character" code pages (incl ISO-8859) was bursting at the seams and increasingly disruptive in the connected, multi-lingual, world.  The euro symbol may be the first instance when many people became forcibly aware of it, but it is not new. If you have a Windows 9X or a MAC-OS earlier than X or an old cell phone, you'll have to live with the intercept assignment until you can upgrade. But this is outside the scope of an article on the euro - it is much wider than that and it applies to range of typographical marks (such as inverted commas) and [diacritics] too. Maybe you can add some comments to Unicode? --Red King 14:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1252

message: An anon editor add this opinion piece to the main article.  I have moved it here:
It is easy to blame the euro for some of the economic problems affecting Europe and as a result feel more comfortable if there was a return to the old currencies.  But, much has changed in the world since the euro was first introduced, especially in the areas of increased globalization and high oil prices.  To some extent, the euro has cushioned the EU economy from the effects of these that the old currencies could never.  The slow growth and high unemployment Europe has been experiencing is the direct result of failing to liberalize strict and uncompetitive work rules.  Yet, fringe political parties and people with a lack of understanding on how the new global economy works find an easy scapegoat in the euro.  
Currencies today are fiat currencies and their value is determined strictly on the faith of investors outside the home market.  There is no gold or precious metals backing a currency.  A nation may have control of interest rates but not on their own currencies value relative to others.  Adjusting interest rates is no longer a reliable means to set the value of ones currency.  
A return to the former currencies as some wish for would be a disaster to those that would attempt it.  The old currencies would at once decrease in value relative to the euro and other nation's currencies.  The huge expense to convert would increase national deficits to levels of bankruptcy and former debt as well as new debt would have to be paid back in euros or other hard currencies.  National and personal wealth would be wiped out, and the hoped for return to pre-1999 prices not only won't materialize, but prices will rise significantly as hyperinflation grips the economy.  
The experts know this and will do everything in their power to assure the euro stays put. 
I just moved it, so don't debate the content with me! --Red King 19:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting and informed. What happened in Italy was a person that was a nationalist and always said that. The problem is that someone had listen to him in a critical period. Obviously, the Euro is here to stay. It is no longer an EU's currency it is a national currency of many countries (the Euro is that really, that's why it is printed and coined in all countries). The Euro was just blamed by the growth of inflation and that was a fact. Though, the inflation is now very steady. It is an interesting point but it should be NPOVed, only mentioning the hypothetical future on a Euro withdraw, at max.-Pedro 09:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested in a section on this subject. Perhaps we should add some "before and after" statistics on growth rates for eurozone countries. Here in the UK we are constantly being told by the media that the Euro is a 'failure' without any explaination of what a 'failure' is or what is meant by it. Just today, Kenneth Clarke, who is a contester for the leadership of a national party, anounced that it had been a mistake for him to have backed the euro because it is a 'failure'.  I've never understood this - in my home country of Ireland where we use the euro, when it is discussed (which is rare - its just a fact of life) it is generally considered a success - it has lowered transaction costs and increased investment. I think the article should address these issues. Such a section should discuss what the definition of a 'success' or 'failure' of a currency means. Seabhcán 12:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactions following the constition vote

message: In the first sentence of the article (The euro (€; ISO 4217 code EUR) is the currency of [...]) I replaced Holy See with Vatican City. The Holy See does rule and represent a state (the Vatican City) on an international level, but it is NOT a state. The council decisions are constantly referring to the Vatican City's right to mint Euro coins and not to the Holy See. 85.124.176.91 09:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vatican City vs. Holy See 

message: I was surprised to not see knaak listed, and promptly added it, as it is one of the most heard nicknames where I live (Rijnmond area). The contrary is also true: I've never heard eazer used. Who can tell me in which area this is used?
Also, I think the Dutch slang item can use a big rewrite. I might do this later today.
And I realise now that pleuro is also missing.
: Juerd
I'm a Dutchie too and I'm surprised to hear 'knaak' is still being used as a nickname...
I won't delete that (for now ;)) But 'eazer'.. what the hell? I'll remove that one, because it isn't used in the Dutch language.. at all. And I'll add pleuro, 'cause I use that one on a regular basis :D
:KrftWerk 03/09/05
Strange, I live in the Rijnmond area as well, and I've not once heard knaak used. Also, pleuro would make it sound "more Dutch"? Isn't it a play on the derogatory word pleuris to describe dislike towards the coin? --Michiel Sikma 20:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch euro slang 

message: On the final page of this European Commission report, we can see the new designs for the common sides of the euro, to be used from 2007 onwards. Can someone with more image editting skills than I possess grab the images from the pdf and upload them? I could do it myself, but with my kind of expertise it would probably result in very, very ugly images. Thanks!  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 00:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it now, but I'll add it to the euro coins article instead. - TALK ®€Ð¦-¦0† TALK 17:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Thanks!  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 18:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New common side

message: I have fixed the spelling of this word, but I don't know about the context I found it in.  Does the EU really govern the copying of its currency by means of copyright or is there a stronger basis in law (such as anti-counterfeiting laws in EU and member country law)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elegy (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 November 2005  (UTC)
:As far as I know (I'm almost positive) there is an anticounterfeiting law to protect them. They also protect them via copyright. I assume the copyright is for possible loopholes in the anti...... laws - RedHotHeat 16:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright?

message: Does anyone know if OPEC are still considering to change from listing in USD to euro? - TALK ®€Ð¦-¦0† TALK 17:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mh. I'm not sure, the most promising reads I could find were this and this; especially the second article sounds as if OPEC were slowly but steadily favouring the euro.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 18:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: OPEC

message: So is there a plan in place for Romania or not?  There's some awkward and contradictory phrasing in the article:
:As for Romania (member as of 1 January 2007), it is likely to join the Eurozone in the 2010–12 period. However, there is a clear strategy of the Romanian government at this point to introduce the euro.
Shouldn't that read "However, there is no clear strategy"? Cleduc 05:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Euro#Bulgaria and Romania|Romania]]

message: The switchover to the Euro was hardly without disent, yet I see very little on either the main page or on this discussion page about that matter. What gives? Sweetfreek 07:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As with a lot of issues to do with the euro, opinons for mainland Europe are harder to obtain for the English Wikipedia. With regards to Ireland, very little resistance was met. As it says on here people and businesses were very entusiastic about the changeover. One main exception was a number of people (to my knowledge nearly all elderly) complaining about the size of the 1c coin. Another much less withspread (also mainly from elderly) one was that the colour of the €5 and €20 notes were too close (but if they think that's bad then they're lucky they don't live in the US). The former still goes on today (albeit to a much smaller extent) and the latter I haven't heard mentioned since January 2002. - RHeodt 19:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree wtih Mr SweetFreek.  This article - despite it's aclaim - presents very little of the anti-euro opinion that is common to Conservative thinking across Europe.  How can we ensure their views (not neccessarily mine I add) are reflected in an unbiased fashion in this article? An example of anti-euro reasoning is availabe here -> --Richard@lbrc.org 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I disagree with you (Richard@lbrc.org) but I think what Sweetfreak is saying is different. I think (s)he is talking about the places that HAVE switched to euro. (S)he does say "was hardly without disent". I also agree that there needs to be a more tidy, and better written (with less filler) section on reasons why places don't want to join in future (although I do strongly support the euro, and use it everyday). I don't know, maybe that is was Sweetfreak mean, maybe (s)he'll shed some light on this. - RHeodt 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies

message: I think there should be a more thorough explanation of how the criteria for joining works, and also if one must be a member of the EU to join the Euro or mint your own currency. 81.232.72.53 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think all of the answers (except maybe that one on criteria) are in the articles but as I used the plural you'll note they are spread around. I agree they should be in one place. Although you may just be suggesting that it be in the article, if you actually don't know, officially you must be a member to join. You could adopt it unofficially but you wouldn't get your own coins or anything. With regards to minting, no you don't have to. Take Luxembourg as an example (they might mint their own coins, although I doubt it but I'm not positive) they don't print any banknotes. - RHeodt 21:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are Luxemburgeois coins (though almost certainly the actual manufacturing is done in another state).  But it it is a good comment on the criteria.  We say that Greece didn't meet them initially, but we haven't said what they are.  --Red King 00:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry forgot to mention that Luxembourg do have coins. What I meant was I wasn't sure if they had a mint in Luxembourg to mint them there, since they don't have a banknote printer. - RHeodt 12:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for joining