Talk:Euro/Archive 4

message: Also, I think that it would be good to have a table with the criteria to join and the non-Eurozone EU members - so to see witch state covers the criteria and witch does not:
columns: country, EMU-II membership, inflation, budget deficit, (criteria4), (criteriaX), formal opt-out
row1: "Euro/Stab&Growth pact requierment", >= 24 months, <= ?? %, ?, ?, ?, NA
row2: "UK", 0, ..., opt-out
row3: "Sweden": 0, ..., commitment to join (as per EU accession treaty)
row4: "Denmark": 6 years, ..., opt-out
row5: "Estonia": 1.5 years, ..., commitment to join (as per EU accession treaty)
rowX: ...
199.64.72.252 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good table, but it adds even more bulk to an article that was already too long.  It should really move to a separate article, in my view.  Consensus?  --Red King 00:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not to a separate article, please, we already have too many articles dealing with similar topics. Move it to an existing article -- I suggest moving it to the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union, which is more relevant anyway and needs to be expanded anyway. Aris Katsaris 01:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also possibly Convergence criteria, Stability and Growth Pact --- generally the whole thing is a mess, and many of these articles probably need be combined with the EMU one. Anyway, for starters, you can move the table to the Convergence criteria article. Aris Katsaris 01:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  With a unique heading and a #-type link from this page, then? 惑乱 分からん 15:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't we use the date the country joined ERM II in the column? The way it is now, we'd need to update it every month or so, and if we included dates, we could simply put in the date from which onwards the country will meet this criterion... —Nightstallion (?) 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table with joining criteria

message: It says: "A benefit is the removal of bank transaction charges that previously were a cost to both individuals and businesses when exchanging from one national currency to another. Although not an enormous cost, multiplied thousands of times, the savings add up across the entire economy." The first sentence might be fine, but the second one seems just palaver. And if the second one is all the support the first one can get, then maybe this argument for the euro should not be included at all.--Wikiwert 15:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a frequently cited argument in favour of the Euro. In fact it is probably the most obvious and applicable to peoples' daily lives. I see no problem with either sentence. the first says, this is a benefit, and the second says that its a benefit, but not an enormous one. Do you want sources, or simply more detail? Peregrine981 22:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I just think the "add up" argument is trying to restate the first sentence in a stronger way, like trying to convince the reader, when it really does not matter. However if a reliable source states it, I have not much to say.--Wikiwert 03:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It should maybe be added that this is less of an argument for Sweden.  The Swedish government has connected the crown to the EU treaty about this, and as a result the fee charged for using cash machines to get EUR within the EEA has to be the same as the fee charged when getting SEK in SE.  Usually, both fees are zero.  For sending money to/from bank accounts in SEK and EUR, most banks are still able to charge fees, although they typically are smaller than the fees for sending money in other currencies, such as DKK to Denmark.  Banks still decide the exchange rates, though, so they can make some money that way.  Many banks add 1-2% of the total amount as a fee when using a foreign currency with a credit/debit card, and as this fee is part of the exchange rate, the laws don't remove this fee. (218.228.195.44 02:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What happens with payments and card usage outside the EU, but at places where the euro is the currency (currently Monaco, San Marino, Andorra, Vatican City State, Montenegro, Kosovo and some French non-EU colonies)? (218.228.195.44 02:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of conversion fees 

message: I noticed that there isn't any part written about the economic "Optimal Currency Area" (OCA) criteria as put forward in economic theory. These criteria are (mostly): Areas that are characterized by:
#High capital and labour mobility. (Robert A. Mundell)
#Widely diversified production and exports that are similar in structure between areas. (Peter Kenen)
#High openess to trade and that trade heavely with eachother. (Ronald McKinnon)
#Fiscal transfers.
Two notes:
#All these criteria stand in relation to the ability to deal with asymmetric shocks (i.e. shocks that only hit one area). (Symmetric shocks are less problematic in a currency area as currency will depreciate as "one area", while asymmetric shocks will create an exchange rate that is too high for one area and one that is too low for the other, causing wage, price and unemployment problems).
#Though I have some literature to refer to that analyses the euro, I simply don't have the time to read and write it all right now. Nevertheless, I think this should be a very important part of this page. I hope anyone else has some knowledge, literature and time for this. Sijo Ripa 02:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and it was badly needed! (I suggested it on 24 August - see "Reactions following the constitution vote" above but don't know enough about it to write such an article.  So thanks for contributing Optimal Currency Area - Eurozone. --Red King 23:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optimal currency area criteria 

message: Can someone clarify this section? Sijo Ripa 23:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what the author meant was that, prior to EMU, a Spanish (say) company really only had access to venture capital or loan capital denominted in Pesetas, unless it wanted to add exchange risks on top of all the other risks.  Now it has (theoretical) access to euro-denominated funds anywhere in the Eurozone.  How true this is hard to say, but there is certainly widespread anecdotal evidence that in Ireland, France and Italy (at least), the local banks were running a closed shop, with rates that were far less favourable than were obtainable elsewhere.  But I don't know how to say that succinctly.  [I didn't write it in the first place!] --Red King 00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Competitive funding?

message: Maybe it's just me, but I have a strong objection to the way in which this (below) is phrased:
The euro is sole currency in the following EU member states: 
* the six EU founding nations Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg as well as 
* Austria, Finland, Ireland, Portugal and Spain and Greece. 
Why should it be highlighted that Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg founded the ECSC (not the EU, which was formed later). To me, it strongly makes it out as if they had a very special part to play in creating it. Why can't it just be one (alphabetised) list like before, instead of this split into two lists (whach are going in a seemingly random order)? - RHeodt 12:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrasing of list of members 

message: This article seems to have a strong pro-Euro anti-US stance in that it doesn't include several criticisms about the Euro as well as potential problems with the Euro becoming the new reserve currency.  For example, countries not being able to set their own interest rates/fiscal policy has made some manufacturers very uneasy.  Also, in regards to the Euro there are some very significant downsides to becoming the new reserve currency that the article doesn't discuss.  In fact, the European Central Bank has made no indications that they would like the Euro to become the new world reserve currency.  There are significant economic implications to running currency deficits, and the somewhat manufacturing-heavy European economy which this article does not even discuss.
Despite it being nominated as a "well written article" this article is severely lacking in criticisms of the Euro as well as not discussing any sort of downsides to some of the possibilities discussed.
Rewrite.
:I don't quite see how failing to mention problems that the euro economies would incur if the euro were to become the major reserve currency is an anti-US stance?
:I agree that the article needs to be reviewed for NPOV violations (and general accuracy), but it's hardly bad enough for a rewrite;  it might be a good idea to be careful and provide references before accusing anyone of anti-Americanism.
:RandomP 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy if the anonymous poster would learn that euro is not a proper noun and is not supposed to be capitalized any more than dollar is. But that's me. Evertype 19:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I think that a few other things out to be mentioned regarding Sweden, the UK and Denmark.  I can't speak for the other countries of course, but in the UK there are fears that switching over to the Euro will negitivly impact the nation's soverignty, and bring Britain one step closer to ceasing to exist as a political entity.  
Additionally, there was the incident where the UK was forced out of the first ERM, the damage this incident did to British interests still leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many British business leaders.
: After eight and a half years of euro in Germany - do you think Germany does no longer exist as a major political entity in Europe? Same for France or Spain? Well, I don't think so. After WWII and its heavy impact on German patriotism the immense success of deutsche mark was next to the constitution the only other one focus of patriotism. That's why so many Germans rejected to give up the deutsche mark. Still today average Germans "mournig" about lost of deutsche mark but on the other hand we are proud to have established together with our neighbours a single currency. I guess that it would work out for Britain as well. But nevermind, if Britons prefer to stay out it is simply your best right which is not to be critizied by others. As a Britain-loving German I would feel happy when you join but as I said: It's your choice.
: What I would like to say further on about that UK was forced out of ERM I is, that it is simply not true. One has to see that a majority of Britons vote for staying out of Europe (while geographically are a part of it :-)). So it was an easy-to-build legend to blame Europe. By this British politicians didn't need to find explanations for the people. In fact the whole ERM I system failed not only the GBP in the system.
Well, I can speak for one other country, Ireland, where I live, and it has not negatively impacted our sovereignty, nor brought us closer to ceasing to exist as a political entity. Our businesses do not have to worry about fluctuating rates of exchange, and we can use the euro in nearly every other EU country, without having to exchange money, pay transaction fees, etc. Unfortunately I usually have to travel through England en route to the continent, so I have the inconvenience of having to change money into your pounds. Still, it's your country, and if you're happier that way, who am I to object? 
On a more insular note, if the newly devolved Northern Ireland were to adopt the euro, it would be most convenient for all of us, north and south, and be a useful and peaceful step towards unity. Millbanks 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other objections in the non-participating states 

message: The second paragraph of the article says:
:The euro was introduced to world financial markets in 1999 and launched as a currency in 2002.
At the same time, the section headed "2.1 History (1990-2002)" says:
:The currency was introduced in non-physical form (travellers' cheques, electronic transfers, banking, etc.) at midnight on 1 January 1999, when the national currencies of participating countries (the eurozone) ceased to exist independently in that their exchange rates were locked at fixed rates against each other, effectively making them mere non-decimal subdivisions of the euro.
This inconsistency ought to be removed. I'd suggest that the second quoted paragraph - that the currency was introduced in 1999 - is more accurate. At that time, the legal status of the existing coins and notes were, I believe, changed so that they became representations of a fixed value of the euro. In practical terms, it was in 1999 that the usefulness of the euro to businesses came into being. For example, if a French company signed a contract with a German company, which was for a fixed number of deutschmarks and delivery two years later, the exchange rate risk (namely that the number of francs this would produce for the French company might change in the coming years) was eliminated from the start of 1999 rather than in 2002. Adrian Robson 12:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and have edited the introduction paragraph appropriately. Revert me if I'm wrong. Henning Makholm 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did it become a currency? 

message: This was unwieldy to type in the edit comment, so I'm putting it here.
* The date for the opening of the oil exchange is unknown. The previous date listed is anachronistic.
* The reason for Irans delays of the opening of the oil exchange are unknown. The claims listed in the previous version were speculations. Joffeloff 21:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My changes 

message: There are some hints that the Euro is to be introduced in French pacific territories in 2007... shouldn't this be mentioned on the page?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.8.100 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-28 13:45:25
: Perhaps. If you can find verifiable, reliable sources for those "hints", then go ahead and add a description of them to the article. Henning Makholm 14:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've also read of this, but I haven't been able to find anything giving a date for that to happen... —Nightstallion (?) 16:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The best source currently only I could find is . I did have something stating that 's parliament approved such a change, but the site at  is no longer available, not even with the Wayback Machine. —Nightstallion (?) 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: another source says chances of an early introduction of the euro in New Caledonia in the nearly future are slim...Thewikipedian 11:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the Pacific franc have to be part of ERM II for two years prior to being replaced by euros?  Cf. the Estonian crown which also has been pegged to the euro since the beginning.  This would rule out replacement by euros in 2007. (218.228.195.44 04:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. There is a difference between EU (candidate) countries adopting the Euro and third states doing so. Any country theoretically could simply declare its national currency to be the Euro, the US Dollar, or sheep, for that matter, without the support of the ECB, US Fed, or local barnyard. Montenegro unilaterally adopted the Euro quite some time ago. The DOMTOM have the added benefit that they are, in many senses, administratively part of France.samwaltz 06:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OTOH any country that unilaterally adopts the euro will not have the ability to produce its own currency (unless it wanted to get into counterfiting which would open up a whole can of worms of its own). This would essentially mean that all its citizens will be paying a hidden tax (by way of inflation) on thier savings to the EU. Plugwash 19:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFP Franc 

message: This article has been approved for inclusion into Version 0.5. However, is it possible to add a very brief summary of information about future entrants to the Eurozone? Currently, this article's section points to that article, but it should have at least a short list of the countries scheduled to enter. A few more references could help too. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nomination|Version 0.5 Nomination]] 

message: The article says
:"Similarly, price transparency across borders is said to benefit consumers find lower cost goods or services. There is no universally accepted scientific theory based on firm evidence that this is an inevitable consequence, but rather is more likely to come about, if and when it does, due to popular belief in this system."
I can't, off the top of my head, think of an economic theory that would come close to meeting the standards that a scientific theory has to meet. And I certainly don't think that any of them could be described as an "accepted scientific theory based on firm evidence that this is an inevitable consequence". (The laws of motion or gravity would presumably fall into that camp.) Economics is too heavily influenced by human behaviour (either at a macro or micro level) to get it right every time. There are just too many variable to model. That's why every financial instrument in the world has some risk attached.
Obviously, something does need to be said about price parity/transparency. It's a fairly important benefit of cash over the barter system... Maybe the currency page has some info on it. I'll give it some thought and amend this section, unless anyone has a strong argument against my view here. Kayman1uk 08:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote from the article show extreme naivite about what a scientific theory is, but the follow up is, if anything worse.  "universally accepted scientific theory" is an oxymoron.  "inevitable consequence" very questionable concept except in very loose conversation.  Economics is not a science?  Please check out the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences.  If you're saying that economic and other social sciences are more difficult that physics or chemistry or biology, etc. you are merely stating the obvious.  BTW, there were certainly times when chemists used to say that biology was not a real science, forgetting of course that there were times when physicists said that chemistry wasn't a real science....   Smallbones 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price parity - what? 

message: Which side of the Euro coin is heads and which is tails? Most people I know say the sign with the map is heads, and the other side is tails. However, on many countries euros, that side actually has a head on it.--Richy 00:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heads is national side. Tails is the denominational (value) side. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 01:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it? I know that here in Ireland most people would say heads is the common side. Although we usually have Irish euro coins and say "head or harp?" when flipping, as the harp is on the other side... Stifle (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd agree. I'm in Ireland too, and whenever someone uses heads and tails, heads always refers to common side. But as far as I know, it is officially the other way around. - Рэдхот 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Portugal now we never say "heads or tails" but simply "national or common?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.13.62.48 (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And in Dutch it would be kop (head) or munt (mint or coin side), head will definitely be the Queens head as it was that way for the previous currency. Hence in the Netherlands the national side side is head. Arnoutf 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  "Heads or harps" has always been the way in Ireland. No confusion there. Rwxrwxrwx 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In Germany we always said "Kopf oder Zahl" which means "head or number", so we don't have that problem. :) Which currency has TAILS on the coins? o_O 84.58.146.67 15:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heads or Tails

message: in the info box:
Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Kosovo, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, and Vatican City
*it is nonsence to put all in the same bag, only the twelve countries should be included, the rest should have a different place, but not mixed, the Euro is the merger of 12 currencies (period), and has nothing to do with kosovo, neither with Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City that use the currency due to an agreement. it is like saying the Dollar is the currency of Transilvania, Sealand and the United States of America. --Pedro 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Same bag?

message: Could we include a section about locations where the Euro has not been recognised by the local governments, but is often used as currency, regardless? I can pay in Euro in large parts of Slovakia (Bratislava, Nitra) and Hungary (Sopron). Additionally, I have been in countries outside the Eurozone where I could take Euro from ATMs/Bankomats. samwaltz 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The euro is also in common usage in western Russia and Turkey. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you get euros from just about any cash machine, or only at a few special locations?  In Stockholm there is a small amount of cash machines where you can withdraw cash in euros, but most of them seem to be located at airports and similar places.  Some even offer pounds sterling, and the main usage for these seems to be withdraw money and then leave the country for somewhere else where EUR or GBP is used as the main currency.  Also, in Sweden, the card is still charged in Swedish crowns -- are you charged in Slovak crowns and Hungarian forints or in euros when withdrawing cash from those machines? (218.228.195.44 07:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we definitely could, but you'll need sources. It would be a good contribution to the article, but if it's not recognised at any level, then we'll need a source (even an online shop from the region might suffice) - Рэдхот 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Euro as unofficial currency

message: It is said that prices in the Netherlands and Finland are round to the nearest 5 cent multiples. My question is, are thing already priced individually to the nearest 5 cent multiples already? What about gasoline? What about the interest you get from your saving account? Do people have the tendencies to go one step further and price things to 10 cent multiples?
What about other countries?
Thanks. --Chochopk 10:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, articles are priced exactly, and when paid for by non-cash methods (credit cards, etc.,) are paid to the precise cent. It's when cash is used to pay for the transaction that the total price of all articles bought is added up, and that sum is then rounded to the nearest 5 cents, so the total rounding is never more than 3 cents. If the price of every article on sale was rounded to the nearest 5 cents it would be enormously inflationary. -- Arwel (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do shops also have rules on very small purchases to stop people either getting stuff for free or at least a vert significant discount by making tiny transactions? Plugwash 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They use common sense. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that 5 cents are the equivalent of nothing. Nothing would ever have prices as low as 5 cents, so I do not think this is an issue. The value of countless such minimal transactions would at any rate be so small that the only people I could think of that would value their time so little to endeavour on a mission to get these discounts would be very small children. Bfg 19:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some time around introduction of EU coins there came up the idea how to become a millionaire. It went like that: 0. go to germany, 1. go to your local bank, give it 1 german Pfennig which they have to convert to 0,511 cent which is rounded to 1 cent. 2. get the cent, have them convert it to Pfennig: 1 cent = 1,96 Pfennig so you get 2 Pfennig. 4 Take them and convert them *individually* to cent again. This idea would have worked, unfortunately the time needed for getting a million this way was way too long: 10^8 transactions needed :) 194.97.235.6 10:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Bfg is, of course, speaking from the point of view of some very rich countries, with very high incomes. Their statement that 3c is a ridiculously small amount which won't concern anyone apart from children will surely apply to wealthy countries, but is unacceptable in the poorer EU countries, where even the small approximations which were brought about by the initial conversions to euros had reprecussions on the average family's buying power. 83.132.98.149 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just thought I'd point out that expertise is not required for this. All is needed is someone who either lives in, or has been to the Netherlands or Finland (since the euro came in in cash). - Рэдхот 10:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallest unit (expertise required) 

message: As the only English-speaking country that uses the euro is Ireland, it seems to follow that official and common usage in Ireland would dictate the plural. The usage is split with a slight favouring of "euro" over "euros". Even if it was the other way around, this is hardly conclusive; the official plural "euro" is certainly a better choice for the Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bully for you. The English-language Wikipedia isn't "for" Ireland, and the usage of the s-less plural is a mistake only perpetrated upon the Irish people because Charlie McCreevy didn't get it right and didn't fix his error when it was pointed out to him. Spain and France and Portugal quite sensibly use the natural plural euros in all contexts other than legislation. The consensus has been to use the natural plural euros on the Wikipedia because it reflects the actual usage of most English-speaking people in the world and that includes people in Ireland whether you consider them to be in the majority or in the minority. You may think this disaster of language-planning is "lame". But it's not. Language matters, and Irish people who travel and say "fifty cent" just sound like rubes—and while you may not have been paying attention, I was. The s-less plural, when first "introduced" by RTÉ, weirded out everybody in Ireland, until (some of) them heard it so often they started to use it, "because they were supposed to". Well, they weren't supposed to. Evertype 14:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the discussion is not a lame one, but Evertype - you are taking this discussion way to personal. I'm a member of the "Norwegian conservative language" group (the best translation I could think of), so I share your need to get agitated over linguistic issues. But still we should try to keep the discussion civil. Statements like "Bully for you" are not promoting such an environment. Bfg 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point, but "bully for you" seemed to be an appropriate counterpoint to "as it admittedly is". I guess I might have added a smiley. It's just that this is extraordinarily tiresome. The decision to prefer the plural "euros" on the English-language Wikipedia dates back to 2002! (And I was not involved with this page then, either.) Evertype 07:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Has any one read the Interinstitutional style guide of the europa web site. It states the prefered english plural is cents and euros. I believe the plural without an s is all R.T.E's fault. As the national TV and radio broadcaster for Ireland it wields a lot of "cultural" power.  From the introduction of the euro onward they referred to the euro plural without an s in all scripted official programs like news etc. I'd love to know who sets RTE's official grammar policy and why they chose to foist the no s plural on the world. I remember seeing a program on RTE some time ago about the News and they do have a person that they refer to for pronunciation and grammatical queries. I believe they got the stupid idea came from the actual notes where it says "10 euro" --Trounce 12:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural 

message: I placed a warning on the top of the page that this page is currently under development. This is to prevent people from changing the euro/euros status without reading the talk page. Personally I find the issue a little bit annoying, if you cannot resolve this within the next three weeks, I will put this article in front of the arbitration comittee, to reach a final conclusion. Bfg 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is annoying is that there was discussion about this matter, and the consensus was that the plural euros should be used on the English-language Wikipedia. I prefer to keep to that consensus, which is why I revert. This isn't a new issue; it isn't a sudden revert war. The people who keep coming in and changing to the s-less plural have not read [] or []. That is what is annoying. I don't think this "development warning" prevents people from changing the plural, and I don't think  arbitration will prevent new people from changing it in future. So what I have been doing is reverting to euros and pointing to previous consensus. Evertype 07:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Evertype.  There is no real dispute.  The large majority are satisfied with the natural plural: any new editor can be referred to previous discussion.  This time is merely unusual because one editor refuses to accept the consensus view.  Development warning is overkill. --Red King 20:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development warning 

message: I disgree with this change  , in fact, this table should only include the founding currencies of the euro, as it was unveileid when the Euro was to be launched. it is an historical table, so Slovenia should not be included, there's the Greek issue, but the best is also to exclude Greece.--Pedro 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. I would support adding a division line into the table, for the purpose of clarifying which were the "original" currencies, and which had subsequently been absorbed/renounced/etc. samwaltz 21:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Samwaltz. --Chochopk 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that it is useful to have all currencies in the same list.  If you are uncertain in which order, and when, certain currencies were replaced, you might have to look at a lot of different places. (218.228.195.44 01:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: samwaltz's idea is the best. --Pedro 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have modified the table, added an extra column with de exact day the rate was announced. A black line divides the 10(BEF=LUF) original currencies of the eurozone with other currencies that joined later. Thewikipedian 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical table

message: I'm going to put the infobox back in the upperright corner.  I don't know what google friendly means but I don't think we're editing articlas so googlers can find them in 5 seconds, I though ti was to make the artical look good? — HurricaneDevon @ 00:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google friendly means that google can display the opening para, not some illegible gobbledygook.  We should encourage people searching for info about the euro to come here. --Red King 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google friendly? 

message: Why does the article say the Slovenian tolar is fixed when the European Central Bank's exchange rates against it are still listed and still varying from day to day. Yes, only marginally but varying nonetheless. - Рэдхот 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it is factually incorrect and you should delete it. --Red King 23:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I just wasn't sure if the ECB was going crazy! But seriously, I was hoping putting it here first would encourage someone to show the source that they used, to see exactly what it said. - Рэдхот 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I believe the fixed exchange rate agreed upon at the meeting will come in force January 1, 2007, and until then the Slovenian tolar floats freely. After checking the Bank of Slovenia's website, it seems that is indeed the case (http://www.bsi.si/en/). edolen1 12:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not that I disagree, since that's what I seem to get from their site too, but that seems very unlikely. That mean's that although they have a rate agreed, people could very easily play the fact that it's rate from 1 Jan '07 is fixed. I can't think of exactly how that can be exploited, but I'm sure there's some way to exploit it. - Рэдхот 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And that playing would explain why any changes in value would be only marginal at this point, if you know a currency is going to be worth a certain ammount at a certain time in the future and its cheaper than that now you are going to buy. Likewise if its more expensive now than it will be when its fixed people will sell. Plugwash 11:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but that marginal bit could be quite a lot if you're dealing with a lot of money. Should the rate from 2007 be readded since its been clarified now. Like saying that it will be fixed from 2007. - ;Рэдхот 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slovenian tolar not fixed?

message: Do the Spanish exclaves of Ceuta & Melilla have the Euro? Should this be mentioned? (JROBBO 04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceuta and Melilla are legally part of Spain. --Red King 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ceuta & Melilla

message: I'm trying to prune out some of the weirder economic assertions out of here while preserving all of the established facts and some of the well-regarded theories (i.e. those that can be traced to a reputable textbook of some form).
I've created a couple of goofs I'll fix later when I have a moment... for example, there's a reference to "subsidization" in the oil section which is perfectly accurate, but makes no sense in the context of the article anymore.  I was a little heavy handed in my previous edit.  I'll fix it shortly. Jelklan 17:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More edits 

message: Someone put "1 and 2 cent coins are rarely used in Ireland" in the infobox. Is it true? What I heard is the contrary, that they use the lower value coins more than other eurozone members. But I have no source. Neither "Euro coins" or "Irish euro coins" mentions anything about it. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it's nonsense. We use 1¢ and 2¢ coins all the time in Ireland. Evertype 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm removing it now (was it already removed? If it was, it has been re-added, so I'm removing it again). - Рэдхот 14:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are also using the €0.01 and €0.02 coins here in Belgium... I wonder why it's out of use in the EU. Thunderhawk89 12:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, the article is not wrong. It says 1 and 2 cent coins are rarely used only in Finland and the Netherlands, which means 1 and 2 cent coins are commonly used everywhere else. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What about gasoline and interest generated from saving account? And by 9 of 12, u mean the 12 provinces of the Netherlands? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If cash is involved, it is rounded.  I don't think things paid for with credit cards, or interest at banks, is rounded.  My hotel bill was to the cent.  And I meant 9 of the 12 countries which went to the Euro in 2002.--Wehwalt 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For gasoline and diesel, of course only the total amount is rounded. The price per litre has cents and often tenths of cents (usually 9 tenths). --BIL 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct.  If you bought 44.47 euros of gasoline, the per litre price might be 107.9 cents, and you would pay 44.45 euros.  I should have excluded gasoline and other things sold on a per litre/kilo basis.--Wehwalt 17:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just those two countries.--Wehwalt 23:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Even in Australia, even though we dont use the 1 and 2 cents, prices for cash are rounded to the closest 5 cents, but with petrol, supermarkets, phone, gas etc they are still quoted in 1 and 2 cents for the exact price. So is this the same senario for the Euro? Enlil Ninlil 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.--Wehwalt 06:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... only in the Netherlands and Finland, though. —Nightstallion (?) 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 and 2 cents in Ireland 

message: Placement of the currency sign varies from nation to nation. While the official recommendation is to place it before the number (contravening the general ISO recommendation to place unit symbol after the number), people in many countries have kept the placement of their former currencies.
* I say: placement varies with mood. I usually put it before the number and many companies also does that, but most people put it after the number (the former currency style). So I don't think that statement is correct. -Pedro 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Placement of the currency sign

message: Does anyone else think this article needs some liposuction? It's gotten very bulky, but I always get the impression that it could say what it says in an article about half the size (a lot of redundant sentences, or ones that belong elsewhere). Anyone else agree? Personally I like the Dutch article. Its not too small, and not too large (our problem) and just looks nice and neat. - Рэдхот 12:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article will always be long. The problem I see is repetition of data, notably with Eurozone and Currencies related to the euro. These data should be move/merged, or the tables should be templatified. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But I think that the problem isn't a straight-cut one. I think a lot of it stems from IPs with no regard for Wikipedia policy (a lot of high-profile articles seem to have the same problem). But I think that we could try and cut it out. But we'd probably have to make a list (and of course see what others think) - Рэдхот 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  As some point, I'd like to consolidate a lot of the economics stuff in here.  Maybe I'll try to do that now.  Let me know if you see any obvious problems, I'm going to "be bold" as the wiki page suggests and hopefully there will be some good feedback... Jelklan 04:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Jelklan. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Okay, round one is done.  Any comments, updates, fixes, etc., please post.Jelklan 04:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  Next I suggest clearing out 90% of the Eurozone section, reducing it to a stub that directs readers (and editors!) to the Eurozone article.  After that, the Effects section could become a separate article too. --Red King 16:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long? 

message: I will make my case as to why quoting exchange rate is necessary.
# The relative value of a currency should be mentioned. There's no question about that
# If I don't do it, some IP user will
# So instead of one format per currency, I provide a platform that can be applied to all currency pages.
# So why quoting the precise value of a particular day?
:* Right now it's 1.25095 USD, and I don't see a reason to round it arbitrarily to 1.25 or 1.3
:* We cannot predict the future, but by providing a latest precise value, the current value would be, on average, the closest figure to the future value, assuming the future value follows a normal distribution where the mean is the current value and the longer it is in the future, the wider the standard deviation is.
:* And by the assumption on the standard deviation, the date also provides some implied information. The older it is, the more "off" the value could be.
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This all seems to come down to "The relative value of a currency should be mentioned". There is a question, I am raising it. "If I don't do it, some IP user will" is not an argument either way. Of course, if it is actually required, a uniform standard is highly desirable, but that is getting ahead in the debate. So, what is it for? From my perspective, it leaped out of the article as being completely unencyclopedic. The world outside Wikipedia exists, and can provide today's currency values any time. Also as an editor, what am I seeing? An invitation to update the numbers? A frozen snapshot, never to change? Or something that belongs to a particular person to update when they have time? A historical table of values might be useful, though I suspect we should really just cite one rather than reproduce one. I cannot think of any similar precedent (but of course Wikipedia is big and it's easy to miss big things). Thoughts, anyone? Notinasnaid 10:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So there are several issues I would like to address. "If I don't do it, some IP user will" may not be a very strong argument, so forget about that. IMHO, the value of a currency is not unencyclopedic and falls into the world of Wikipedia. Is it not an important data of a currency? So you might be wondering, it's changing every second (well.. yeah, when the market is open). Population of a country and revenue of a company are also ever changing. But these data are still included on Wikipedia. Something being constantly changing doesn't mean it's it's unencyclopedic. It's just that population and revenue aren't published as often and that makes editor from frequently updating. So "an invitation to update the numbers"? Yes, this is a problem. I originally intended the number to be updated somewhere between monthly or weekly, update whenever there is other updates. But obviously I have no control over people. Currently the best way i can think of is something like having template subpages for each currency and transclude them on the currency pages. This way, it's not so obvious how to edit to a random IP user, and edit history would be separated. But the downside of that is the data may become stale if someone who knows how to edit is not around for a long time. To address that, I'm thinking about making a bot. But I'm still debating (with myself). Please trust me when I say I've put a lot of thought into this exchange rate thing. And I do hope that people reading this join the discussion. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange as it may seem, I don't find anything in the United States Dollar article that gives its exchange rates.  Why should this article be any different?  --Red King 19:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now it's next to the $2 image. And please use lower case for currency unit in article space, as it is grammatically correct. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, found it after United States dollar#Factors influencing the dollar price.  --Red King 16:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well said. I would like to hear more opinions from others. Please discuss at Template talk:Exchange Rate. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exchange rate 

message: IMO, it is not a good idea in principle to quote exchange rates as at some arbitrary date.  It is not sustainable and not encylopedic.  An annual average is far more useful.  
* It is not sustainable because it is unrealistic to expect that it will be revised for all currencies every day.  Anyone who needs to know the actual daily rate will use a reliable source like XE.COM or OANDA.COM
* It is not encyclopedic because, by capturing the rate on an arbitrary date, no useful understanding of long term price is conveyed to the reader. 
 
The historical exchange rates (since 1990) that are given in Exchange rates section of the Economy of the United Kingdom entry. are far more useful. Spikes are smoothed and the reader gets a far better idea of the relative prices and how they move over time. It only needs to be updated once a year and the exact date is not critical.--Red King 16:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. I would like to hear more opinions from others. Please discuss at Template talk:Exchange Rate. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Principle of quoting exchange rate on an arbitrary date

message: Says now on the article: "On 1 January 2002, the first purchase involving euros occurred on Réunion island when officials bought a bag of lychees at a market."
This is pretty much factual; I wrote a node about this in Everything2, however, with a bit of research; However, I didn't really mark my sources better than "Yahoo! News", so I believe I read a Reuters article about this or something. Someone could dig that out.
Also, there was Euronews coverage about the first use of euros in continental europe:    Costas Simitis withdrew money from ATM in Greece, and Sauli Niinistö bought a cup of coffee for 1€ in Finland. In the live broadcast by Yleisradio at the time, they also interviewed him, and he decided to call Simitis at the same time to wish happy new year and joked about how they were now highly qualified to talk about use of euro currency.
Wonder if we can find exact sources for these? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use trivia 

message: I'm talking about . I feel that the wording can be misleading. Assuming the national central banks were truly independent before euro, then it is the central banks, not countries that "surrendered" the ability of making policies. And they didn't "surrender" that completely. If I'm not mistaken, ECB policies are still made by representatives of all members.
:Sovereign governments have entrusted the economic health of their countries to a largely independent entity which may not have the best interests of those countries in mind.
It sounds like ECB might sacrifice the interest of someone for the "greater good" (and by sacrifice, I mean to hurt). IMHO, this is hardly going to happen. And the implication of that is like "for Germany to win, Slovenia has to lose". What about "the policies may not be ideal..."
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Different economies in Europe have different needs, maybe one is over-heating and another is struggling. The policies adopted by the ECB will have to compromise one or both of their needs to some extent. This won't always be the case, but it can, and arguably has happened. Peregrine981 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think what I meant to convey is that they are surrendering their sovereignty to an organization that may, at times, have competing interests. For example, perhaps there were large riots in France that deterred investment, then France might be best served by lower interest rate, a policy that might not be compatible with (a) the ECB's mandate to keep inflation low or (b) some other country in which there is a very high level of investment. Did that come through in the way I wrote it?  No, I think you're right about that and it does need a bit of a rewrite. Are there competing interests? Absolutely. Germany is in the curious position right now of wanting looser monetary policy to try to jumpstart a rather sluggish economy, which is at odds with a large number of other's members desires.  This is kind of ironic largely because Germany for so long pursued a very tight monetary policy. 68.77.21.117 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition to the Criticism section 

message: After making use of the new infobox parameter to enable multiple listing of printer website, I realized it is a little cluttered. I am leaning toward merging it with euro banknotes, and have the infobox of euro referring to it. However, the merging must be done with the upmost care. There is a small contradiction. Euro says "Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato" (Zecca) for the Italian printer, while euro banknotes says "Banca d'Italia". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  printer 

message: I don't really see why sections 3 and 4 are separate... they're all about the economics of adopting a single currency.  I'll happily volunteer to merge the two sections, assuming people aren't too concerned about that.
Also, there's that little section 6, which hardly seems to justify its own space.  Since the first section talks about the design and selection of the names and symbols and everything, perhaps it would be best if it were moved in there?  I guess what I was kind of envisioning here is a more spartan organization of this article:
(1)  Talk about the characteristics of the euro, naming conventions, etc.
(2)  The history of the union
(3)  The economics of it all
(4)  Statistics / figures
(5)  Trivia followed by notes and whatnot
I mean this more as a proposal to get the ball rolling... I'm constantly jarred by the length of the contents up top and the number of little sections and subsections.  Anyway, let me know what you think.  Jelklan 07:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that sounds fine to me. I'd say do it - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 13:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combining sections 

message: Why has the exchange rates' format suddenly changed in the Against other major currencies section? I thought the standard way was to show it as "main currency in question"/other currency, but now lots of reversals have been added in brackets, and in some cases they are the only ones. i.e. There are lots of rates as $/€. I thought its meant to be the other way around since that's how banks do it (local/foreign) - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 15:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exchange rates formatting 

message: Seems to me we need a section, or perhaps an article, detailing the changeover from the legacy currencies to the Euro, the problems that were supposed to erupt on 1 January 2002 and mostly didn't, and detailing the policies on exchange of legacy currency.  It should probably be a separate article.--Wehwalt 14:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to see that article. It would be nice to reorganize all these euro related article such as Eurozone, Linguistic issues concerning the euro, Currencies related to the euro, etc. If I have time, I will make a nav box. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will work on it.  "Introduction of the Euro" seems to be the best title.  Start with the fixing of the exchange rates, through to the withdrawal and demonitization of the legacy currencies.  --Wehwalt 08:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changeover to the Euro

message: For those of you who are interested in making changes on 1 January 2007, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adopting euro 

message: As of 7 January 2007 I have not seen information that Bulgaria and Romania have become part of ERM II. As they can join the Euro only if they have been in officially in ERM II years, the exact date matter. 
Bulgaria is de facto member for a while, but this is irrelevant.  
Herzog Tryn 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgaria and Romania in ERM II 

message: Northern League is widely considered a far-right party in Italy. Here are some of their opinions as expressed by their leaders and policies:
*Umberto Bossi (leader of the party) himself said that African immigrants, whom he called Bingo-bongos, should not receive popular housing paid for with Lombard money.
*A minister from this party have argued that boats full of immigrants (mostly black and albanian) should be bombed by the Italian Navy rather than allowing them to set foot in Italy.
*In June 2005, at a festival organised by the League, a banner was displayed saying "Rape Pecoraro", (referring to Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, the openly bisexual secretary of the Federation of the Greens).
*In 2005, Mario Borghezio, MP for the League at the European Parliament, was found guilty of arson, for having set on fire the belongings of some immigrants sleeping under a bridge in Turin in 2000.
*Their most quoted reasons for seccession are that northerners are of germanic ("lombardic") and not italian stock.
The Northern League claims they are not far-right. But their actions speak for themselves. Is this a respectable right wing party for you? 84.90.18.136 22:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion should be had at Talk:Lega Nord not here. At the moment, the article Lega Nord does not describe them as a far-right party, rather a separatist right wing party, and we should reflect that here. Far right is a pejorative term that should generally be avoided in favour of more descriptive terms (see here) and if used should only describe neo-Fascist parties. See the article Far right which includes MSI but not LN as far right Italian parties. In this context, calling LN a separtist party is more relevant. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Separatist' is a pejorative term too. Those seeking self-government for XXX are best described as 'XXX nationalists'. Siswrn 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess you're right. Less pejorative I imagine than far-right. I'll have to think about that one... AndrewRT(Talk) 01:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern league is a far-right party 

message: do you know how to convert Euro to U.S. dollars?? I need to know for a project.  Bobrox 22:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It varies by the day.  If you want to know what it is today, go to somewhere like XE.COM but if you need to know the history, you need somewhere more like OANDA.COM.  For example.  --Red King 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean how to convert euro cash to USD cash, then you better do it in places outside of the U.S. Traditionally, the USD has been the "strongest" currency, so it would be relatively easy to buy/sell USD in other countries with their home currencies. Because every other country is doing so, there is little incentive for Americans to operate Bureau de Change booths. There might be some in a few American airports, but the prices are complete rip-off. Thomas Cook and Travelex are also rip-off (not just in the U.S.) You need to look at the difference between sell and buy price to determine how favorable the price is to you. The "difference" here is actually the ratio between the two. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OANDA.COM (and no doubt other sites) has a "travellers tools" page that give interbank rates, then typical credit card rates, then buying currency for cash in a bank and maybe travellers cheques/checks.  The bid/offer spread widens rapidly. --Red King 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you convert € to $ 

message: Proposal: Add the Danish krone (DKK) to the "pegged by" field in the infobox, and from there link to a footnote that says:
:The DKK is "soft-pegged" to the Euro: A fixed exchange rate is defined, but the DKK may deviate ± 2.25% from it. See ERM II.
Reason: I was always wondering if the Euro is pegged by the DKK or not. The "Pegged by" list in the infobox currently doesn't mention it, so I assumed the exchange rate is floating. But it turns out that's not really correct: There is a "theoretical" fixed rate of EUR 1 = DKK 7.46038, and the actual rate is guaranteed to deviate no more than 2.25% from that. That's because the DKK participates in something called the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (see there for details).
I don't want to make that change since I don't know much about finances, but please consider it. Thanks. --193.99.145.162 16:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been considered. But if Danish krone is included, then all such currencies should be listed as "bounded-pegged". Can you enumerate all currencies that meet the criteria? Repeat that for the USD? Some central banks, unlike Danmarks Nationalbank, follows an unknown currency and hides their secret formula. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euro "sort of" pegged by DKK 

message: In the summary box the article divides the coins and banknotes into frequently used and rarely used.  I think this is rather subjective, and varies from country to country.  For instance, in Austria the €100 note is common -- in fact it is what many of the bank machines give out if you request €100 or more.  However, in other countries this isn't in common use.
Wouldn't it be better to just list the denominations and footnote the fact that certain countries don't mint (or set prices) in terms of 1 or 2 cents?
:If the situation of banknote is different from country to country, you can combine the two rows by specifying used_banknotes = €5, €10, €20, €50, €100, €200, €500. About coins, I think there is no ambiguity on who uses 1 and 2 cent and who don't. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How this could be anythin but anecdotal, in the case of banknotes, I don't know.  However, I do recall that Portugal does not issue 200 or 500 Euro notes, I forget why, money laundering, probably. Such notes are still valid there.  Aside from that, I'm not sure what we could say.  I'll look for sources when I get a chance.--Wehwalt 22:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't force it if you can't find a source. I would imagine the case of euro is more complex than the USD, where $2 is rarely used pretty much everywhere. The template is designed with flexibility. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coulndn't we say that 100Euro is used occasionally, and should hence appear on neither frequent nor rare list? Arnoutf 19:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why bother then?  And we have no evidence it is used more or less frequently than any other high denomination banknote, say the US $100 or the UK fifty pound.--Wehwalt 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rarely Used vs. Frequently Used 

message: I may appear an ass for putting contradiction tag everywhere. But finding contradiction is what I'm good at, and what I deem important for Wikipedia.... So... on the target join date of new members:
          	Euro 	Eurozone       	National euro coin article
Bulgaria  	2010 	2010           	second half of 2009 or on 2010-01-01
Hungary   	2012+	2010           	not 2010
Latvia    	2011+	Not before 2010	doesn't say
Czech Rep.	2012+	Not before 2012	unlikely 2010
Poland    	2011+	2011           	2011 achievable
But I'm not a euro expert. Can someone update them please? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for Bulgaria, the Euro article mentions 1st January 2010, while the Bulgarian euro coins article specifies that it may be up to 6 months earlier. The Euro coin article thus contains a little more information that the Euro article only refers to in note 14, so I see no contradiction. Preslav 07:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, the later dates are the more likely ones; we should simply find the latest dates given by the government (on Google News or on eubusiness.com) and source the dates from there. —Nightstallion (?) 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for Hungary I can safely say that any guess is as good as ours. New dates are announced rather frequently, and the date of the introduction of the euro is a political battleground here. I recommend that the dates be changed to "To be announced"/"Not before 2010", or both simultaneously, otherwise we'd have to update this section almost daily. As some may know, the President of the National Bank will assume his office soon, this may bring about a viable target date for the euro. Bear with us, please. George Adam Horváth 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody can fix this? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think anybody can fix this problem.  There are official target dates that some governments are announcing but they are usually updated every year or so.  Poland does not even have any official target date yet.  Those dates are difficult to estimate as they depend on many factors (both economical and political).  Some governments want to adopt euro earlier than they can others would like to wait longer even they meet economic criteria.  Sometimes when the government changes the enthusiasm towards euro also changes.  In other situations official target date might be already unachievable but it is still official and then different dates are circulating based on estimations of economists and politicians (both from the state interested and from European institutions).  So there is a lot of speculation and contradicting views on those dates and the official ones are as possible to become reality as all those unofficial.  In case of dates 4+ years ahead we can almost say “sometime in the future” :-) Example: In early 2006 official dates for Lithuania and Estonia where both 2007-01-01.  They are both using their old currencies at the moment.  No one was updating the entry date for Estonia for many months in 2006 but everybody knew that Estonia has to high inflation to meet the target so different sources were saying 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010.   CrZTgR 21:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I removed the section on counterfeiting for a couple of reasons.  (1) It had no place in the macroeconomic stability section.  (2) It's addition was of questionable value--it wasn't addressing any particular issue or concern voiced by a particular party or in other parts of the article.  It wasn't factual problems, I just know it didn't belong where it was, and didn't see any particular fit anywhere else. Jelklan 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterfeiting 

message: "Recently" needs to be changed to  "since <date>".  (All nations that have joined the EU since XXXX have pledged to adopt the euro"). But which date?  For expample, what did Sweden agree to do, and when did it agree it? --Red King 12:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of.--Wehwalt 16:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All nations which have recently joined the EU are pledged to adopt the euro in due course,  

message: seems not to work. You can find it here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:EurUsd.png --134.155.99.41 10:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to insert this chart? 

message: There is a glaring error on the 'current eurozone' article under the 'Euro (coin)' page.
I am a resident of Northern Ireland (Part of the UK!!!), and the map shows Northern Ireland as being a permanent eurozone member - however we are not, we are simply an EU member like England, Scotland and Wales.
Please if someone could ammend this, I would be grateful.
81.129.48.8 20:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the image on the right? I don't know why the old map was replaced. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that the Northern Ireland thing isn't the only problem.  Kosovo is misplaced on the map. (Stefan2 09:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not true. For photos and similar images SVG is not an option. The difference is between a bitmap appoach (PNG) where the images is stored as a set of dots each of which has its own colour; allowing for strange shapes, subtle colours etc; but that will not scale well; and a vector approach (SVG) where a circle is stored as a circle with a line with, a fill, and a radius (which will indeed scale very well). Recreating e.g. Rembrandts Nightwatch in SVG is impossible, but for maps and graphics SVG is indeed much preferred. Arnoutf 07:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually the reason PNGs are to be replaced by SVG (where feasible), is that SVGs scale to infity. PNGs don't scale any bigger than their base size. And by the way, PNG is not propriatary - if PNG was, so would SVG, cause they're both controlled by W3C. - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map error

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'no' campaign (euro) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related AFD 

message: After more copyright paranoia / pseudovandalism, most of the images of euro-based coins have been deleted (see IfD "debate"). If anyone has free (or fair use) images of the images deleted (see IfD for red links), we could really do with them being uploaded. — OwenBlacker 11:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euro coin images 

message: it lacks Monaco. Cliché Online 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yielded currencies of the Eurozone

message: In the "Euro" article it says that the euro is the legal currency of the uninhabited "Clipperton Island" and the "French southern and antarctic lands" (which are made also by the "Scattered islands in the Indian ocean"), but if you go to the "Special member state territories and the European Union" article there is a table where it says that both "Clipperton Island" and the "Scattered islands in the Indian ocean" (which are now part of the "French southern and antarctic lands") don't have the euro as their legal currency!!!
So please can somebody see what is wrong and correct one of the two articles? Thank you.    8 July 2007
:To my knowledge, EUR is the currency of France and all its dependencies except for the ones using XPF.  So it would seem that the legal currency of the uninhabited areas would be EUR, although there's no one there to actually use any currency. (Stefan2 22:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct.  If it is legally part of the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, it is part of Euroland.  France issues stamps for the FSAT in euro.  Anyone there would presumably use the same.--Wehwalt 22:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be part of Euroland if the EU does not recognize France's claim to the territory? I believe that under international law, French Antarctica is not a dependency of France, but rather international territory. Not that we need to address this, just another monkey wrench to throw in the discussion. kwami 01:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article problem!!!

message: "In addition, 25 states and territories have currencies that are directly pegged to the euro including 14 countries in mainland Africa, 4 EU members that will ultimately join the euro, 3 French Pacific territories, 2 African island countries and 2 Balkan countries."
Shouldn't this be 24 states?  Bulgaria seems to be included both as an "EU country that will ultimately join the euro" and as a "Balkan country". (Stefan2 22:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was written before Bulgarian joined the EU (2007). The 4 EU members that will ultimately joins the euro refer to the 3 Baltic + Malta. So I moved Bulgaria from one category to another. The sum is still 25. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: I propose that we create a new article, Enlargement of the eurozone. There are lots of reasons I think it would be appropriate (e.g. there's one for ... of the European Union) but the main one, is that it would seem most useful to have all that information in one place, instead of scattered in many different articles (this one, in Eurozone, and in the xxx coins pages). What do others think? - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 11:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean everything about the expanding of the eurozone, in one article. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 07:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a good idea. The main article of euro is gradually getting bloated with the enlargement information. The proposed new article must take from this article and eurozone. My only concern is to eliminate unnecessary duplication across articles. Splitting articles can be an double edge sword when it comes to dupe info. Introduction of the euro should be taken into consideration too. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I've started a stub for it now. Feel free to add/remove. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 10:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new article 

message: How does Andorra, Montenegro, and Kosovo adopt euro unilaterally? Since they are legally not allowed to mint Euro, do they buy enough of it for local circulation or something? --Voidvector 09:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they did. It is a free decision of every country to choose which money should be the legal currency. I myself travelled through Kosova and my Serbian money (dinars) were not accepted but I had to change them by a marketeer into euros. Nevertheless there are also still German marks circulating and they are dealed at a ratio of 1 to 2 because this was the currency there before the euro kicked in. The same counts for Montenegro. By the way, better change Serbian dinars outside Kosova or Montenegro if you want to travel into this countries. --134.155.99.41 14:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this just on hard currency level? because money is not just physical currency, it could be on accounts (money supply). What I see in here is that those countries are piggybacking on Eurozone stability (while it does boost the currency's circulation). When the banks in those countries make loans, they are in fact expanding the euro money supply. If lots of loans in those country go bust or investments sour, it would damage the euro. --Voidvector 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, anyone is of course free to use any currency.  If you wish, you could open up a shop in France where you only accept US dollars as payment, and the American government could do nothing to stop you.  The EU might not like the way the euro is used, but can do nothing to prevent it.  All three areas are however very small, so they don't affect the eurozone in any high degree. (Stefan2 14:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, you couldn't open a shop in France and only accept US$. That is true for most countries, all shops have to accept local official tender, which is the euro in France. But you are right about the US Government being unable to do anything about it if you decide to also accept US$. A lot of countries do a lot of transaction in US$ for convenience, such as countries with a lot of tourism or high inflation, but if you want to pay in the official tender, sellers are not allowed to refuse.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtikuX (talk • contribs) 07:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: When Kosovo and Montenegro started to use the D-mark in the 1990-ies, first informally then officially, the people just exchanged their dinars to D-marks and later into Euro. This could be done since the rest of Serbia kept the dinar. If a whole country changes currency to Euro without being able to print banknotes, the governmant has to borrow money to exchange the old currency. Someone has to have the old banknotes in the end when they are rendered worthless, and this one pays for the change. For Kosovo and Montenegro, Serbia were the one paying for it, and they had hyper inflation at the time. -- BIL 09:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Serbia paid also when Slovenia left the dinar, when Croatia did the same and when Bosnia and Herzegovina did it, too, not to forget the Republic_of_Macedonia. So this does not count for Kosova and Montenegro only but every one of them left Yugoslavia and the Dinar throughout the 1990th after having paid for decades for hegemonic Serbs until they all got fed up. And the hyperinflation you are talking about is for sure more based on the bloody war Serbia brought to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosova and at last the NATO bombings, which stopped all this bloodshed. --134.155.99.41 13:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Serbia did not have to pay so much for Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, since these countries introduced there own currency. These governments could print money and replace people's dinars with them. The question was what these four governments did with their dinars, probably exchanged them for D-mark. Then Serbia had to pay. But because of the inflation there were not much value left. The ususal reason for hyperinflation is that the government (here the Serbian) prints too much money. Where did all bigger and bigger banknotes come from? So the biggest losers were of course people and companies with savings. Kosovo and Montenegro inofficially and in reality used the D-mark from the hyperinflation year, only later officially. -- BIL 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial countries 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Euro_exchange_rate_to_USD%2C_JPY%2C_and_GBP.png is over half a year old. Could anyone show compassion? Or show others how to update it? I would do it if I would know how... --Mustafa Mustamann 17:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. :) If you run Linux, and have Gnuplot available, you can run the script on the description page and it will automatically download the data and generate a new plot. You can also use the Windows version of Gnuplot, but in that case, you'll have to download and unzip it by hand, and use an editor with search/replace or similar to strip the comment lines at the top of the datafile and remove all the commas. Han-Kwang 22:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update it 

message: This article seams to have fallen a tad since it was GA. Most notable thing is the huge lack of citation for most of the article. If there are some active expert editors here, I think it would be good to give it an overhaul. The main problem I can see, aside from the citation, is that the structure is very unclear - it could do with being streamlined and cleaned up in a simpler form. It might also be wise to better organise the group of articles, define each articles scope more clearly. Sorry to just poke holes, I'm not very good with economics, but if there is anything else - my door is open. - J Logan t: 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still GA standard? 

message: Regarding the adoption date of Poland,
* This article: 2012
* Eurozone: 2012
* Polish euro coins: On 2006-01-17, Polish Finance Minister Zyta Gilowska said ... that 2011 was an achievable deadline.
* Polish złoty: The Polish government stated (in June 2004) that it would like to join the euro in 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chochopk (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 2 

message: I added a new attribute to the currency infobox that indicates what denominations ATMs dispense. Examples are available at United States dollar and pound sterling. What about euro? I guess that it varies from place to place (a lot). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really varies.  In my experience, I've seen all denominations up to a hundred euro dispensed. --Wehwalt 01:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the entry from the infobox myself because it is too WP:OR as discussed at Talk:Japanese yen. Sorry about taking your time. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do ATMs dispense? 

message: Ssolbergj, I'm sure you're in good faith. But I have to point out that your edit breaks if you turn off java script. The "[show]/[hide]" button won't display. This is true with Firefox, IE, and Safari. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsible list 

message: from Euro#Current Eurozone (2007), last point
"Euro can be exchanged over the counter in all high-street banks and post offices, without the usual formalities of a 'foreign currency' deal."
What this is supposed to mean,euro it's a foreign currency ... but not that foreign?--88.82.47.31 04:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What formalities? I mean, you bring in foreign money, you exchange it. I think the sentence makes no sense. Euros are acceptable in many shops, but that is up to the owners. See the BBC coverage from around the time euro came in.--Wehwalt 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know, but as far as I can see it's not true - if you took euro to my local post office you'd certainly have to treat it as foreign currency and pay a commission to exchange it for sterling. This was introduced by 86.3.50.93 on 23rd August. I'm taking it out, if someone wants to put it back then they'll have to put cites in. -- Arwel (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the point "usual formalities".I understand that,yes you have to buy and sell at market value,but are they some other kind of formalities ,for other foreign exchange?Maybe for security/police resons,like maney landrey.Maybe the difference is not when you go and change 20€,but when you whant to change 20 million €.May be when you whant to change 20 million €, you are not treated the same way as if you whant to change 20 million $.I supose that the fraze is refering to something of that sort.I just whanted some futher explaination on, whatever the editor had in mind.--88.82.47.31 06:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a very small number of shops (more in Northern Ireland) which will accept EUR instead of GBP, but this hasn't really taken off. AndrewRT(Talk) 12:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euro in the UK 

message: Cypriot pound and Maltese lira.The rates are still floating?Are they already locked?In theory they will be locked 1/1/2008 but already they are considered as good as euros?How cares what the rate will be in 31/12/2007,in 1/1/2008 they will be that rate over night?Can somebody make this clear what's going on,in this +-5 months period that every body knows what the rate will be in the end of the year,but apparently they still(officially) floating freely.--88.82.47.31 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Maltese lira, it's pegged to the euro since 2005. ECB chart shows that €1 = 0.5842 Cypriot pound since 2007-07-12. But that is not the central rate. It is 0.585274. The Central Bank of Cyprus says the same thing. So we can say that CYP still "floats". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cypriot pound and Maltese lira 

message: Maybe someone with better english can translate: Der Euro hat nach seiner Einführung sehr stark an Wert verloren. Die Euroschwäche hing jedoch auch viel mit der Tatsache zusammen, dass... innerhalb der EWU noch die Denominationen (D-Mark, Francs) des Euro galten. So I will remove the "citation needed" mark about the reason of euros initial fall. http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~tmuehle/europa/euro/eurochart.htm#usdix --134.155.99.41 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the same page: nachdem die EU ihre lahmende Wirtschaftspolitik nicht in Gang zu bringen vermochte, nahm ein Abwärtstrend des Euro seinen Lauf. Free translation: "After the EU was not able to set the lame economy in motion a down trend of the euro started". This does not really support the sentence "the fundamental facts did not justify the euro's fall." In addition I doubt that a private user page is a reliable source. --NeoUrfahraner 14:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Policy statement somewhere that says specifically that Blogs and similar personal pages are not citable.  It has to come from a notable source.  The chairman of the Bundesbank would do. --Red King 19:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation found but in German 

message: I just installed linux and gnuplot.Gnuplot is a command line based program, so I have to start it through the terminal but I cannot copy and paste into the terminal. So can someone tell me how to do without having to type this all as it is described here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Euro_exchange_rate_to_USD%2C_JPY%2C_and_GBP.png&action=edit§ion=3  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.99.41 (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNUPLOT 

message: Bulgarian does not belong in the infobox.  Bulgaria is not a user of the euro and the Bulgarian word for “euro” does not appear on the physical currency
From Template:Infobox Currency:
:All official languages of the official users (i.e. members of the "using_countries) at the national level, plus all that appear on the physical currencies. – Zntrip 01:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bulgaria should, of course, be included in the infobox as Bulgarian is indeed an official EU language and the name "Евро" is to be included in official documents and Euro banknotes even before Bulgaria is set to enter EMU III. Slovenia does not (yet) have a derogation to use the national spelling "evro", nor does Lativa have a derogation to use the national spelling "eiro". --Camptown 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian in infobox 

message: Why is finland alone now mentioned as the place where 1 and 2 cents are often used? To my knowledge, the Netherlands has been on this list before (if several discussions on this page are to be believed) and should never have been removed without proper discussion... but I see no discussion here, can anyone point me to it or put the Netherlands back in?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.25.121 (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 and 2 cents in Netherlands 

message: Shouldn’t we remove the Swiss franc from this template below as it holds only 0.1 to 0.2 percent and merge it into the row “Others”? --134.155.99.42 05:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. - S. Solberg J. 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You think, 0.1 to 0.2 percent is worth to own an own row in this template? I guess there are single currencies with a higher percentage than 0.2 in the row "Others" than the Swiss franc, making it even more reasonable to merge the Swiss franc into this row. --134.155.99.42 17:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it. Can you prove that? If it were like that, it would obviously be included as its own row... —Nightstallion 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new reserve currency