Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style

message: [The following paragraph was originally posted on the main Wikiproject Numismatics talk page since I didn't realize there was a style page.Mom2jandk 17:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: [The following paragraph was originally posted on the main Wikiproject Numismatics talk page since I didn't realize there was a style page.Mom2jandk 17:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: My vote goes for French banknotes and French coins; banknotes is stilistically nicer than paper money, IMO, and the equivalent to French banknotes is clearly French coins.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I vote banknotes #1 and currency as a backup.  "French coins" should be used for modern seris coins, but I think maybe we should use a "Coinage of France" type for historicals and such.  Joe I 21:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, "currency" would be inappropriate since it technically includes coins. So, "French currency" would be about all forms of French money. What's out there now (generally -- I'm not sure about France specifically) is some combination of "French currency", "French coins", "French banknotes", "French franc", "French <obsolete currecy name>", etc. There is always a "<Country> <denomination>" page, but when there is less information and/or interest, there's not always a "<Country> currency" page. Mom2jandk 23:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with "banknote" is that not all paper money is issued by a bank. Whilst the two terms are generally interchangeable, this fact must must be borne in mind.Dove1950 13:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware of that. So, are we stuck with "Paper money", or would "Note" work? It's not my area of interest. Mom2jandk 20:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article titles

message: I disagree that "Ancient coins" is a good name for a list. I think "Ancient coins" should be reserved for an article about Ancient coins. That's what I'd expect to find as a reader.Mom2jandk 17:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, "list" should always proceed the title if that's all the article is, is a list.   Joe I 21:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're talking about lists: When you add links to non-existant currency articles, please be sure not to capitalize the curreny name itself, only the country/demonym.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: Coin denominations themselves, such as Rhodesian Dollar must start with a capital letter. - (Aidan Work 06:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not in this case, since Rhodesian dollar is a currency, and currencies are not to be capitalized.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid, you are not correct. As I am a numismatist, I have always started denominations & currency units with capital letters. I don't know of anyone in the numismatic trade who starts a currency denomination with a lower case letter. You can see my articles Coins of Rhodesia & Coins of Cyprus among other articles. - (Aidan Work 02:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to the two last articles you mentioned; they are ok as it is the first word. For other uses, current policy states that they are to start with a lower case letter, like just about everything else (with the exception of names). Bjelleklang  -  talk 03:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bjelleklang, if you have read Coins of Cyprus, you will see that the currency units (Mils) starts with a capital letter. - (Aidan Work 06:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Nothing personal, Aidan, but I don't think your personal style should serve as an example for all of us – the formatting in those two articles is horrible. Too many empty sections, full stops in section headers in the Cypriot one, style in general and too many one-line paragraphs in the Rhodesian one (albeit it is formatted far better than the other article). Again, nothing personal, but I wouldn't expect everyone to adopt your style any time soon.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The Naming conventions say that all but the first word should be lower case, except if the word is a proper noun.  The disagreement appears to be whether franc, dollar, mark, mil etc. are proper nounds or not.  I don't believe they are.  Merriam-Webster doesn't seem to think so .  None of the numismatic books I have seem to think so (they all use lower case for the denomination).  Aidan, can you cite anything more than "I'm a serious numismatist and I capitalise the denomination"?  I don't mean to offend you at all, so I apologize in advance if I sound that way.  I certainly want to be correct, and I certainly do not claim to be a serious numismatist.  I am not one.  But can you cite any sources besides your own usage?  Markkawika 11:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Denominations should start with capital letters.

message: Markkawika, the Pick & Krause catalogues always start a currency denomination with a capital letter. You will find that nearly all numismatic catalogues also adhere to this trend, which is why a capital letter must be used. - (Aidan Work 02:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, compare this website from the discussion further above.  Nightstallion ✉ 07:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting, Nightstallion.  They discuss it in terms of title style versus headline style.  Apparently title style (as in the title of a book) would be to capitalize it, as in US Dollar.  Headline style would call for it to not be capitalized: US dollar.  In encyclopedia articles, we use headline style, not title style.  Thus our currency titles should be US dollar.  However, that article also brings up the issue of using English names for the currency (zloty versus złoty, dong versus đồng).  I suspect we need to revise our rules to use English terms only, but with lower-case.  This is my opinion. Markkawika 08:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite frankly - no. "English names" would mean to use "Slovenian dollar" instead of "Slovenian dollar", and... no. Simply no. We're already only using Latin letters, and that's fine. The only thing in question is whether to capitalize currencies or not; since currencies are widely not regarded as proper nouns (I think someone above linked to Merrian-Webster and a few other dictionaries), I think we should not capitalize currencies.  Nightstallion ✉ 15:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I missing the distinction between those two Slovenian dollars? Or are you annoyed at those who put their commas outside the quote marks? I'm not sure how that applies here. — LlywelynII 00:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pick & Krause use capitalisation for denominations.

message: Another interesting situation that I just stumbled across is the various Argentine pesos. These each have their own articles, which don't match our style guide. I don't know if they should be renamed though (if so, to what?). Argentine peso, Peso argentino, Argentine peso ley, Peso moneda nacional (the last doesn't exist yet, but when it does, what should it be called?). Ingrid 20:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive my naivity but is it the case that Wikipedia's policy is to repeat common mistakes just because they're common? I do hope not. I agree that arguments over article names take up time that could be spent improving and writing new articles but there isn't much point in developing an encyclopedia full of mistakes. As to the style in question, the changes are very stright forward. We just remove ISO 4217 and use the style already written for those currencies not in ISO 4217, thereby achieving complete consistency.Dove1950 14:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting point which I hadn't really considered. The naming convention does not address what to do if the common name is incorrect. I think that's definitely an argument for having our own naming convention. It's not as simple as just changing it though. If we create a new naming convention, we will have to get support from the project (I think overwhelming support) and then take it to the entire Wiki community where I imagine there will be some resistance to creating an exception to the existing guidelines. There was opposition when it was suggested that New Taiwan dollar be moved to Taiwanese new dollar or something similar. And in that case, I see their point. The bills say "New Taiwan dollar" on them. I'm sure there would be even more argument if "Pound Sterling" was to be moved to "British pound". That's the part of it that I don't want to get involved with. And I'm not sure how to formulate the convention so that exceptions are allowed for "common names which are not incorrect" or some such. Ingrid 16:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Argentine pesos

message: Just to keep things interesting, I'll add another confusing one. Luxembourgish franc is in the wrong place (Luxembourgish is the name of the language and the people, not the general adjectival form). This is something Aidan Work did for his own reasons. CIA World Factbook does include Luxembourg and says Luxembourg is the adjectival form. Several dictionaries I've checked agree it's Luxembourgian. I can't just move the page because there's already something at Luxembourgian franc (a redirect, but it's been edited). So, I need to get an admin to help, and don't know which to use. Ingrid 16:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the franc. The fact that ISO is in fact wrong a number of times was also my reason for being in favour of our own naming convention. —Nightstallion (?) 09:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Another one that will not be named properly except by exception is Maria Theresa thaler which I guess would be Austrian thaler, but no one would know what we were talking about. Also, it's "wrong" to call it Maria Theresa thaler when the coins say "Maria Theresia" (at least the one with a picture in my copy of SCWC says that). Ingrid 14:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Luxembourgish franc

message: Funny you should use CFA franc as an example. The current page is incorrect, and it's on my to do list to fix it up. It needs to be split into several pages, I think. Currently, there are two, and I believe their common names are CFA franc BEAC and CFA franc BCEAO (that's what ISO 4217 uses, and I've seen it elsewhere). I'd rather use West African CFA franc and Central African CFA franc as that's what the coins and notes say (in French). Also, the BEAC and BCEAO are relatively recent organizations (1994, I think), but the previous organizations covered similar areas. There was also a Malagasy-Comoros CFA franc, and perhaps others. Like I said, the page needs work. Let me get some more facts and give better details for what I think the page names should be and why. Ingrid 15:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CFA franc

message: I changed the Argentine currencies so now I think that they are consistent with Wikipedia style. Please let me know your opinions. Alpertron 02:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Argentine peso argentino  Argentine peso ley  Argentine austral  Argentine peso  Argentine real  Argentine argentino  :)  Joe I 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and Argentine peso moneda nacional. Well, there were a lot of currencies because of inflation and hyperinflation in several periods of Argentine history. Anyway, articles for Argentine peso fuerte and Argentine peso oro sellado (convertible currencies) are still missing. Alpertron 11:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentine currencies 

message: At Talk:Dutch_gulden#Guilder_vs_Gulden we have a bit of a problem. The word guilder has been used for the name of the Dutch currency for five hundred years, and there seems to be no real reason to prefer the unfamiliar term gulden. Dove1950 has suggested there that the "rule" is to use "local names" but I've pointed out that this can't be the actual practice of the Wkipedia, so long as you use the word ruble, which is the English name, the Russian name being рубль which would have its "local name" form as rubl’ if this style guideline were a hard-and-fast rule. So... gulden should redirect to guilder because the usual English name should be used, just as it is for ruble, shouldn't it? If not, why not? Evertype 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then such exception (and all exceptions) should be documented in the style guide. --Chochopk 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst it is true that guilder outscores gulden on Google, this encyclopedia cannot allow itself to fall victim to inaccuracy just because it's common. The comparison with ruble is unfair since that involves a switch in alphabet which the encyclopedia cannot accomodate (let alone my keyboard). Nontheless, this article does seek to give the proper form in cyrillic. When no problem with alphabet exists, it makes perfect sence to use the local form (since this is the form which appears on all currency and the article is about the currency) and to ensure that any alternative names get directed appropriately and are explained. Dove1950 22:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My turn to say "nonsense". Guilder may outscore gulden on Google, but it also trumps gulden in the OED. FIVE HUNDRED YEARS the name of this currency has been "guilder" in English, and it's ridiculous, really, to suggest that preferring "guilder" to "gulden" is in any way "inaccurate". Discussing a "switch in alphabet" (you mean transliteration) is NOT unfair. "Local name" (which you invoked) is "local name", and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't insist on "ruble" (which is English) over "rubl'" which is an "accurate" Latin transliteration of the "local" Russian "рубль". You've been saying that the "decision" has been to take the "local" name over the "English" name -- yet if you choose "gulden" as the local name then you have to choose either  "рубль" or "rubl'" for the local name of the Russian currency. And if you don't, and accept the English name "ruble", then you've no reason not to accept the English name "guilder", which also happens to be the name used in ISO 4217. It seems to me that the "policy" needs further work. Evertype 23:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to suggest changes to the style guide, but it needs to have consistency of some sort IMO. —Nightstallion (?) 13:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this what I am doing? Look, the style guide says use ISO 4217, which calls this currency Netherlands guilder not Dutch gulden. The argument that the "local" name should be used can't be applied like a law, as I pointed out with the example of ruble. I propose that Netherlands guilder be the name of the article in question, and that the Style manual reflect this. Also, articles should be checked against ISO 4217. This would help to avoid argument. Evertype 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you make an excllent point that we should use rubl' rather than ruble. I shall suggest this and see what results. Frankly, I don't care what the English name is. The real name of this currency was gulden and that's all that matters. The style guide choice of ISO 4217 has been under discussion for some time and we really need to get rid of it because it isn't self consistent, whereas  using the loacal name or a transliteration thereof is. It's also a lot more useful if the Latin alphabet is employed since the local name is what actually appears on the currency. Show me a Dutch coin or banknote with guilder written on it. Dove1950 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy you espouse here doesn't make sense for a general encylopaedia. The name in Dutch of the currency was "gulden". The name in English of the currency was "guilder" for centuries. There is no "real name". Wikipedia does not have articles about Germany filed under "Deutschland", and it's wrong-headed to force users to read articles with non-English names in them. I object to this in the same way that I object to the s-less plural of euros. You're trying to change the English language by replacing perfectly good lexemes on an arbitrary basis, and the fact that you suggest that rubl' is a credible name for the ruble is an example of a policy which does not serve the end user of the encyclopaedia. Evertype 17:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you advocate replacing accuracy with ignorance? Wonderful, a shining example of how an encyclopedia should be constructed. Tell you what, why don't you go and change all mentions of Beijing to Peking while you're at it. Gulden is not "non-English" as it was used by those who knew the correct name. As examples, I direct you to Krause and Mishler's "Standard Catalog of World Coins" and Pick's "Standard Catalog of World Paper Money". Dove1950 20:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm with Dove on this. ISO 4217 is a very bad standard, as it's inconsistent, partially factually wrong, and grammatically questionable. —Nightstallion (?) 09:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the ISO 4217 inconsistent and factually wrong? – Axman (☏) 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, all units are capitalized. Have you heard "5 Kilograms of food"? --Chochopk 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dove1950. I believe the only reasons to leave the "ruble" exception in place are the alphabet mismatch (the inability to transcribe every grapheme in the Cyrillic alphabet to a grapheme in the Latin one) and the various spellings of ruble (Russia, Belarus, etc). None of these reasons fit the gulden. BTW, while guilder gets 960,000 results on Google, gulden gets almost 4 million. Thus, even the Google argument is wrong. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Google search was faulty, as it also included things, places and people called Gulden — which have nothing to do with the currency itself. A more refined Google search (dated: 2008-02-03) would result in  34,000 English pages for gulden currency -guilder -wikipedia and 433,000 English pages for guilder currency -gulden -wikipedia.  This more refined search indicates that guilder is far more common and correct in English then gulden.  Therefore the Google argument is not wrong, just the way in which people use it. – Axman (☏) 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I feel that guilder is the proper term to be used on the English Wikipedia. Gulden is how we, the Dutch, call our currency. Guilder is the proper English translation. I believe that using google hits to determine which term to use is not correct. It is obvious that you wil find more hits on the internet of the English term, simply because of the fact that there are more pages in English. Magalhães (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the prevalence of the English term is what we're trying to establish. You're right it's not the only argument, but when people are ignoring 500 years of etymology you can use every little bit. :) — LlywelynII 01:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guilder vs gulden, ruble vs rubl' 

message: I _really_ don't want to get involved in this debate again. But can someone explain why Finnish mark is an exception? It seems like a classic case of translation. If we translate this one, why not translate gulden->guilder, koruna->crown, tolar/peso/yen->dollar and all the others. Ingrid 13:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for changing it to Finnish spelling markka. --Chochopk 22:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is with Swedish/Finnish spelling; we'd have the same issues with Belgian (German/French/Dutch), Bosnia-Herzegovina (Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian), and possibly other countries with more than one official language. I'd also be in favour of markka in principle, though. —Nightstallion (?) 11:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Must update style guide for multi-lingual countries. --Chochopk 23:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish markka 

message: For information: an "Irish pound" versus "Irish punt" debate has started at Talk:Irish pound --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Irish pound]]

message: See talk Talk:Kraków grosh and Talk:Prague grosh for surveys.
Are there guidelines how to determine historic names?  -- Matthead discuß!     O       22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of 14th century silver coins? 

message: In the case of the Afghani currency, this style results in a ridiculus name, "Afghan afghani". There currently is a big debate over the adjective form of Afghanistan so its now named "Afghanistani afghani" or "Afghanistan afghani". There should be an exception made when the denomination actually contains the name of the country and is the only country using the currency. The previous name was many times clearer (Afghani (currency)) since the term Afghani can mean three things (currency, citizen of Afghanistan, Pashtun). -MarsRover 17:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see your point, but it's not that ridiculous, particularly as the existence of Afghani people would necessitate the ugly namespace of Afghani (currency). — LlywelynII 01:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghani 

message: Let’s deal with a few of the points raised.
*"Wikipedia is descriptive, not proscriptive." So that’s a vote in favour of this proposal, since we are describing what’s actually on the currency.
**No, this is not about how we  describe the currency; it's about what we call it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
**No, you misunderstand me. We describe what the English world calls these currencies, and not prescribe what the English world should call these currencies. If the English world is content to use "Lebanese pound" (including the Bank of Lebanon) and "Brunei dollar" (as attested by Bruneians), who are we to dictate that we should use "Lebanese livre" and "Brunei ringgit"? --seav (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Nightstallion and a few others agree with Dove1950's position. --seav (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm totally confused about which proposals we are talking about right now.  I'm going to start a new section below to summarise all the proposals to make the discussion clearer. --Novelty (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see that this discussion isn't getting personal. The reason that the current convention has been broken is because small cabals of editors have been forcing its breakage without reference to this style. Such actions should not be used as an excuse for abandoning it for a pre-defined mish-mashDove1950 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of points raised

message: Use the term for the currency that is most commonly used by English language sources.  Such sources include encyclopedias, media of record, academic literature, and numismatic catalogues, and English usage in issuing central bank or government publications and on currency themselves.
*Support. —  AjaxSmack  03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1

message: There are many ongoing or recent discussions on currency article talk pages that may be impacted by this proposed guideline change. They are listed here for reference. Feel free to add any that are missing:
* Talk:Dutch gulden - ongoing move proposal to Dutch guilder
* Talk:Brunei ringgit - ongoing move proposal to Brunei dollar
** Closed as move 14:05, 5 February 2008. Reverted by Dove1950 the next day; no sign of discussion with closing admin. 
* Talk:Egyptian gineih - ongoing move proposal to Egyptian pound
* Talk:Egyptian qirsh - ongoing move proposal to Egyptian piastre
* Talk:Renminbi - ongoing move discussion to Chinese renminbi
* Talk:Pound sterling - not-so-recent discussion to move to British pound sterling
* Talk:Lebanese lira - ongoing move proposal to Lebanese pound
* Talk:Chinese wén‎ - ongoing move proposal to Chinese cash
* Talk:Greenlandic koruuni‎ - ongoing move proposal to Greenlandic krone
* Talk:Mongolian tögrög - move to tögrög was made in May 2007 with minimum discussion and in spite of sources showing that tögrög was not common usage in English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathrobe (talk • contribs) 03:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We also need to re-examine everything at #Nomenclature problems for currency articles, Template:Guilder, Template:Franc (frank in German??), and Template:Pound (currency). Unfortunate for us. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the Aruban Central Bank calls it's currency the florin on its English website .Dove1950 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing or recent discussions on currency article talk pages

message: * The existing and proposed guidelines both include this linguistic howler:
:Use local grammar for plural form (i.e., 1000 yen, not 1000 yens)
There are two issues here:
# Which plural form?  The former Finnish mark, in Finnish, has sixteen plural forms (one in each case), but when used with a number as shown in the (bad) example, the partitive singular form is used.
# "Yen" has a null plural in English, not just in Japanese.  "*Yens" would be wrong whether or not you applied this dubious rule.
If the article describes a specific coin or banknote, it seems reasonable to require that the article be titled using the denomination as written on the object in question, transliterated as necessary.  Otherwise, Wikipedia policy (use standard English spelling and grammar) should apply.  121a0012 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the best way to derive a satisfactory solution to everyone is to discuss plural in a separate section. (So is the guideline). We can concentrate on the article naming convention here. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved this from #Discussion of guidelines change proposal to attract more audience. I think there are two things to be discusses here: 1) denominations for the physical currencies, nice even numbers like 1000 markkaa/markkas/marks 2) arbitrary monetary amount in the currency article and elsewhere like "3.14159 billion <units> have been issued" or "the metro ticket costs 3.14 <units>". Whatever the result of this discussion is, this part of guideline needs to be written separately. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural 

message: Is it 20-cent coin or 20 cent coin? There's a mix of the two from article to article and occasionally an article uses both. There should really be a guideline. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenation for coins 

message: An issue related to currency naming guidelines is under discussion at Talk:Chinese wén, specifically the use of English names of currencies.  If interested, please discuss a resolution of a titleing issue and give suggestions there. —  AjaxSmack  01:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese cash

message: There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MoS naming style

message: Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy.  That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes.  An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy.  As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC – WP title decision practice 

message: On the project page, in the section about article titles, I find "... the United States whose official demonym is 'American' (potentially ambiguous and non-NPOV) and whose currency ...". I find the inclusion of "potentially ambiguous and non-NPOV" to be editorial-voice commentary that seems a bit strange. While such remarks may be found on Talk pages, I find it a bit odd for it to be on this project page, which is rather prominent and is referred to by MOS:CURRENCY for article title guidance. Is that really appropriate, or it is just something that someone put there and no one else ever bothered to focus on and remove? —BarrelProof (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Potentially ambiguous and non-NPOV" commentary