Template talk:Currencies

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

To add this to your page put {{currencies}} at the bottom. It includes a [[Category:Currencies]] tag. When adding your own currency, please put it in alphabetical order. Thanks. Gruen2alk 15:46, 23 February 2006 (GMT)

1 question

What is the difference between the Currencies in major currencies, and those in major currencies? --Swilatia (Not Swilly!!) 17:08, 23 February 2006 (GMT)

They're more developed: there's more in their articles. I suppose I was hoping it would be an incentive to add more than just 'the currency of $nation'. But I admit they're arbitrary distinctions, and people should change if appropriate. Gruen2alk 17:35, 23 February 2006 (GMT)

Quite well done, m'boy. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 03:22, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Rearranging the currencies

Perhaps, however, this should be rearranged into four categories: Hard currencies, stable currencies, fiat currencies and soft currencies. The Gulden may be a "major" currency in terms of article development, but the exchange rate against the NSD/USD classifies it as a soft currency. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 19:08, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

I don't understand --swilatia 19:14, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

I would support subdividing, but that runs into two problems: one, many currencies aren't developed enough to fit into one of those categories (like my own, the Gnor), and two, many people have no idea what those different terms mean. –|–– Ceo \ rant 19:28, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

How about rearranging the currencies into fixed, floating and former currencies. It is simple enough that most people will be able to understand, plus if the currency isn't very developed we can just stick it into floating, because that's what nearly every one is. United Island Empires 17:21, 2 June 2006 (GMT)

Becoming Major Currency

I just put a fair bit of work into my Currency subpage- The Dowland. I was wondering whether the work I've put into it as of now allows me to become a Major Currency? If not, what else could I put in to become a Major Currency? I know its odd, but I would like to become one. Skinny87 16:15, 5 April 2006 (GMT)

I think its long enough. Since there is no telling how "major" it really is, the well-devolped articles go there, as on most wikis, the really major things in the world tend to get more attention from edeitors, and therefore they are well-developed. If you want to see how developed a major currency page should be, take a look at some. --swilatia 19:34, 5 April 2006 (GMT)

Well, I've looked at the Major Currency Articles. With the exception of Guffingfords Gulden one, which is seemingly perfect, and about two others, I think I've got a longer and more detailed article than all of the others. So I think in terms of detail and variety, I have enough to become a Major Currency, but I didn't want to change anything and get banned or warned. I was wondering who made a decision about this. Skinny87 19:47, 5 April 2006 (GMT)

Not all Major currency articles has to contain pictures, like the Denkmark. Some encyclopedia contain just words, as long as you are making the point about your currency. Try your best to describe your coins and bank notes if you can. --Constantina 17:55, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

Response to recent round of edits

Somebody took it upon themselves to reclassify major and minor currencies, and the edits were rolled back, which I think was quite appropriate. The episode did however make me wonder why we have major and minor currencies listed apart, it seems like having that distinction will only provoke similar edits in the future. If all currencies were listed in one section with no distinction, there would be repeats of the day's edits. While I can see the argument that the major and minor classification is an incentive to write a particularly good article, I think that incentive already exists - the whole point of a wiki is to write as good an article as possible, and we have featured articles for the really good ones. Why do currencies need their own additional incentive? --Pantocratoria 16:15, 22 April 2006 (GMT)

Let me explaining this: this was done with languages too. So its not just here. --swilatia 16:53, 23 April 2006 (GMT)

Yes. Furthermore, I wasn't really looking for feature articles - some of the major currency articles are significantly below featurable status in my view - but just for some improvement, because of the general low quality of currency articles. ~Gruen2 10:59, 10 May 2006 (GMT)

Currencies NPOV Poll (6/1/5)

Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes (~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.


  1. That all the "Major" currencies are those used by a certain group of players, who do seem to also hold positions of power on NSWiki, and all others are unimportant seems a bit biased to me. Kajal 10:15, 10 May 2006 (GMT)
  2. I think it should just be a list of currencies, no major or minor section. Perhaps ordered by number of countries that use them. John 10:52, 10 May 2006 (GMT)
  3. A 'Major' currency seems to be so claimed purely because "there's a large article on it". Which, frankly, is silly. A 5 million pop nation with an imploded economy can write a long article and have it made into a Major Currency purely on word-count. Order them alphabetically, or by strength, or by number of countries that use them, but not by article word-count. - StarblaydiaYlomTiny.png Star Talk. 11:12, 10 May 2006 (GMT)
  4. I think it's biased and think that Ceo and Pacitalia's suggested categories would be a better way of classifying the page than Major and Minor. --Pantocratoria 03:57, 11 May 2006 (GMT)
  5. I think it's biased too, and would prefer to see a simple alphabetical list. This United State 06:44, 12 May 2006 (GMT)
  6. The bias, if anything else, is inherent in the "major/minor" definitions being used here as opposed to their standard definitions were we talking about, say, the Euro or the dollar versus the yen or the dinar. Calling something a "major currency" suggests a lot of trade is done in it and will give users the wrong idea if we instead define "major currency" as "one with a long article." I also have this gripe with the Languages template, but that's just me. --Scolopendra 18:17, 4 June 2006 (GMT)
  7. And my currency doesn't even merit being a "minor" currency? I agree the problem is the implications of the words "major" and "minor". Granted I only created it recently, but it seems some change to this thing is in order. --Kelssek 04:03, 15 November 2006 (GMT)

Not Biased You might as well consider the languages template biased, Kajal, because the Major/Minor system was taken from the Languages template, where it worked very well. In other words, this is not biased. Also, Kajal, its not like some people have lots of power here. there are only some people who are admins and have only slightly more power. Otherwise its equal. And really, there are more major currency articles then admins, as I would think before making such a claim. --swilatia 11:34, 10 May 2006 (GMT)

  1. I frankly didn’t know where to stick my response, so I decided to join Loudon Wainwright III’s dead skunks in the middle of the road. 8^)
    As others have noted, bias or the perception of bias lies in the use of potentially loaded and unexplicitly defined terms like “major” and “minor.” Several proposals have tried to get around that by describing two to four types of currency, but then you get into problems of multiple applicability of categories. E.g., my Denkmark is simultaneously a stable (until third geek’s NSeconomy seemed to fry out, I was stabilised ~Ð200 to the US$), a fiat (gold is better in electronics than in silly bullion bars) and a weak currency (see first). Other suggestions, e.g., by countries using the currency, the strength of the economy, amount of international trade, etc., seem equally problematic and not helpful to the goal: getting a better written and more interesting wiki.
    As others have noted, the division of “major” and “minor”, regardless of their controversy, has improved the quality of the writing. So the end is just, how do we make the means transparent to reflect that? How about explicitly dividing it into “Most wikified,” “Better wikified,” “Best practices” or some such for the former “Major” category; “Least wikified,” “Honourable mention,” “Noteworthy” or some such for the former “Minor” category. You might consider this a highly diluted or fractional “Featured Article” approach, which I think is fair. “Most wikified” rewards those who write clearly, concisely, informatively, interestingly, funnily and appropriately; and who illustrate their articles (as mine is not, but thanks for your vote of confidence nonetheless Constantina, so be aware that I am probably advocating my own demotion).
    If you like the incentive structure, why not fix the number of major and minor currencies (also a good technical idea, or your list will get absurdly long) at say 10:30? At the moment, roughly 15 are major, 45 minor and 50 left behind in Category:Currencies only. That way the bar gets raised ever higher. Better yet, announce at the end of this poll that a vote will shortly decide which of the currency articles gets vaulted to Featured Article status to act as the gold standard (couldn’t resist!) upon which all others are judged? If there is some model article to look at, it is much more difficult to harbour reasonable suspicious of bias.
    Sober Thought 03:32, 9 June 2006 (GMT)
    I disagree with what John thinks the currency should be arranged. EVery NS nation has its own currency, and players with many puppets who claim their currency is widespread would be the only ones with major currencies. Neo-Erusea 16:23, 4 September 2006 (GMT)

Neutral/not clear

  1. I won't go either way on this, but to clear up what might appear to be a misconception: I made the original division of major/minor, based on Template:Languages. I had thought - as, given edits to some currency articles might seem to suggest has been the case - it would prove a stimulus to people to make their articles more than stubs. Furthermore, I think the accusations of bias are a little unfounded, given this cabal you're referring to don't roleplay with me (and are unlikely to do so, I'd imagine), and that I have not included my own currency, even as a minor one (admittedly because I forgot, not out of some great altruism, but still). I do not think there is a bias, per se, but if people think the division, instead of promoting beefing up articles (Currencies was a category that I thought contained too many stubs, but at the same time had obvious potential for improvement), will simply promote disharmony and edit wars, then I'd support their being merged into a single currencies list. ~Gruen2 10:58, 10 May 2006 (GMT)
  2. Meh. It's not biased, but it should probably be reorganized in order to stop a problem with edit wars and "who-gets-to-decide" stuff. See my suggestion below. Ceo \ rant \ rave 13:02, 10 May 2006 (GMT)
  3. I don't think it's that biased but I do see people's points, which is why I came up with the suggestion to reorganise the template into the following four categories: hard currencies, stable currencies, fiat currencies and weak/soft currencies. People were concerned that there would be no concrete knowledge of those terms among users, but I would be glad to explain them. And instead of cutting people into two categories based on effort, perhaps we should think about, in compensation for implementing my suggestion (to save room on the template), we remove links to articles that have barely any content. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 17:08, 10 May 2006 (GMT)
  4. It's not biased as such, but it still needs to be changed. I think the ideas people have been throwing around are alot better than this major/minor idea. United Island Empires 17:01, 1 June 2006 (GMT)
  5. Changing my vote, because, per UIE, some of the solutions proposed below will work better then what we have now. I still wouln't consider the template biased though. --swilatia 01:16, 9 March 2007 (GMT)


  1. Please udpate the vote tally when you vote. ~Gruen2 10:58, 10 May 2006 (GMT)
  2. I have had to remove the NPOV tag. The neutrality of this article is still up for discussion. The removal was due to the fact that this is a template page. As such, the NPOV tag was displayed on every currency article that used the template. Apologies for any confusion caused. ~Gruen2 11:04, 10 May 2006 (GMT)
  3. I must tell you that putting it into a single list will render the template useless. if we do get rid of the major/minor thing, then we should separate it by something else, like currency value.

--swilatia 11:38, 10 May 2006 (GMT)

    • Agreed. It does need some sort of division. Suppose we sorted it into fiat currencies, material-standard currencies, and stubs? Ceo \ rant \ rave 13:02, 10 May 2006 (GMT)
  1. On Paci's suggestion, that wouldn't really work: currencies could fit into more than one category (you can have a fiat currency that's also soft and stable, etc.) Ceo \ rant \ rave 04:05, 11 May 2006 (GMT)
  2. Possibly could substitute fiat for another term like "mid-range" or something like that, then. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 06:45, 11 May 2006 (GMT)
    But then it's not quantitative. We'd get all these newbs just sticking their currencies up in strong. I would prefer to separate based on whether it was based on a material standard or not. Ceo \ rant \ rave 12:54, 11 May 2006 (GMT)
  3. I'd also note that the major/minor currencies differentiation right now isn't even done consistently on the basis of length. Currencies with very small articles like Euro are in the major category, while many longer articles are in the minor category. If we're going to categorise currencies as fiat or "material standard" currencies, can we not invent our own terminology for the second category? I take it that "material standard" is an attempt to reconcile the real-life gold standard with all the potential standards used in roleplay, but I still don't like the idea of us making up our own terminology in the template, it will really confuse a lot of readers. Maybe fiat vs hard currency? ---Pantocratoria 04:23, 12 May 2006 (GMT)
  4. In response to Sober Thought: The problem with calling them "most wikified" and "least wikified" or other terms specifically referring to the length of the article is that it would be a Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Self-reference: that is, the wiki referring to inself in articles, which as a rule shouldn't be done. As a general rule of thumb, articles and non-maintenance templates should be kept referring to the subject matter, not the wiki, for reasons presented on the linked page. Ceo \ rant \ rave 13:21, 9 June 2006 (GMT)
  5. It's not the length of the article that is interesting to me, but the quality. Otherwise, I'd have even less incentive to control my own rambling. 8^) I can see the point about needless self-ref, and as my "some such" list suggests, I have no particular preference for the wording. "Best described," "Most developed" or anything else like that which avoids explicit wiki references work equally well for me. If the consenus builds that this is the correct way to go, then we can quibble about wording and I'd be the first to concede the wiki ref.
    If the NSwiki were describing "real" currencies, it would be so much easier because there are only ~200 currencies in the RW, and then you could apply such criteria as "how many nations use this currency?" (which would bump up the CFA franc as well as the euro), "how much trade is conducted in this currency?" (US$ still reigns supreme but GBP would still rate well), "is this currency fiat?" (Pretty much the whole world is fiat, so it's not an especially useful question), etc. Given we are dealing with fiction and RP, the real yardstick has to be how well thought out and presented the RP is. Aren't these the criteria used to decide which articles become featured articles?
    Sober Thought 23:21, 10 June 2006 (GMT)
    Yes, but this is meant to be a list of currencies as a navigational aid, not a list of featured currencies. Ceoranta 17:58, 4 September 2006 (GMT)

Possible solution to the NPOV

I have an idea - why don't we just reorganise it so that it's simply the Currencies of NationStates, without subcategorisation like it is now? That would solve the problem - no users with absolutely horrendously-weak currencies sticking them up in the stronger categories, no people "deciding" on their own initiative that they have a strong currency, no anger over people feeling that others are deciding for them where their currencies get to be in the template. And it removes the NPOV questions at present and in future, because when people add their currency onto the template the only sorting is alphabetical. Sound good? This has probably been suggested before but really, it's the only way to make everyone happy and prevent edit wars, arguments, NPOV/antiNPOV etc. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 23:22, 15 November 2006 (GMT)

hell no. that would make there be no reason for the template to exist. why don't we just toss it off into the dustbin (delete it). --swilatia 23:43, 15 November 2006 (GMT)
Erm...how? I think it's a great idea: linking to all currencies on each page but keeping it NPOV. Ceoranta 01:39, 16 November 2006 (GMT)
In my opinion, thats what categories are for. we should just dlete this template and be done with it. --swilatia 12:52, 16 November 2006 (GMT)

Solution 2: Simply change 'Major/minor currencies' to become 'Major/minor articles on currencies'. We're attempting to reward well-written, descriptive, image-filled, edutainment (wow, Firefox 2 thinks 'edutainment' is a real word) articles, right? It's very difficult to sort through every currency with a standard everyone can agree on and designate Major/minor from there, so just use it to describe the article on the currency, not the currency itself. Not everyone will write a Gulden- or a Douro-type article so reward those that have with 'Major Article' status, rather than 'Major Currency' status. - Starblaydia 10:41, 16 November 2006 (GMT)

I don't think we should sort by content quality on these types of articles. Either we just list them as I suggested, or as Swil said, get rid of the template (though that would mean we've all wasted our time deliberating or editing, which is not good either. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 20:50, 16 November 2006 (GMT)
The linkbox helps with navigation, and I think it ought to be kept. It would be nice to have some categorization of them, though, maybe currently used and historic? Ceoranta 02:21, 17 November 2006 (GMT)
I'll second that, actually. Active and historic is a good categorisation. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 03:07, 17 November 2006 (GMT)
I agree, that sounds like an excellent idea. --Pantocratoria 04:37, 17 November 2006 (GMT)
I agree. both fair and n00b-proof. --swilatia 00:41, 18 November 2006 (GMT)
Active and historic... Yes, I think that's fair. Or how about 1 Currency < USD, > USD and = USD...? Still, it would be nice to have a way to denote the more extensive articles. --Germanalasia 18:40, 13 January 2007 (GMT)
No, because with value-based categories the n00bs will all stick their currencies in the category with the currencies that are worth the most. --swilatia 21:35, 13 January 2007 (GMT)
Yeah, but a currency's exchange rate can be checked up on a variety of economy checkers, can it not? So if someone was to put theirs in the wrong place, we would have a definitive way of determining where it should be, it's not open to opinion (therefore potential bias)... --Germanalasia 21:39, 13 January 2007 (GMT)
Seconded Eurasia 22:25, 14 February 2007 (GMT)
I'd say the active/inactive would work. Or perhaps national international?--Kedalfax 20:23, 25 February 2007 (GMT)
We sshould find a way to combine those two categorisations. My idea is: active national currencies, active international currencies, and inactive/historic currencies --swilatia 20:39, 25 February 2007 (GMT)
Seconded. Eisophca 21:54, 25 February 2007 (GMT)
Seems reasonable - I also approve...
(Although it would still be nice to denote the more extensive currency articles: maybe a featured article-esque nomination system to denote 'major' active nation, active international, and active historic...?) --Germanalasia 20:59, 3 March 2007 (GMT)
We are looking to find an alternative to basing it on article quality, so we are not going to include this major/minor thing. If we want to encourage people to write better articles, we should change the feature more often then every 2 months, or have something like a "good article" status. --swilatia 13:27, 4 March 2007 (GMT)
Well, we are not discussing the removal of the major minor system, but a way to make the template NPOV. Still, it would be better, I think, in retrospect, to have any major minor system ranking the quality of the articles separate. Maybe we could alter the featured article system to have a featured currency section, or something... Different categories of featured article based on the subject matter... Still... Active national, international, and historic certainly seems to be promising replacement to the existing system. --Germanalasia 18:08, 5 March 2007 (GMT)
I believe replacing the minor/major categories with: Active national, international, and historic is the best solution I have seen for resolving the NPOV John 01:20, 6 March 2007 (GMT)
Shall we proceed with this reorganisation? It has sat quite a while awaiting opinions. --Germanalasia 22:49, 31 March 2007 (GMT)

I think we still need a little bit more support before we do this. --swilatia 12:11, 1 April 2007 (GMT)

Shall we make some form of poll to allow people to vote in support or opposition, then, or...? --Germanalasia 16:30, 1 April 2007 (GMT)

I don't see any need for a poll. just wait for more people declaring their support here. --swilatia 18:27, 1 April 2007 (GMT)

It's been over a month since this has been talked abou. Any-one object to me going ahead and implementing this change? --swilatia 12:26, 19 May 2007 (GMT)

Certainly not me. --Germanalasia 15:24, 19 May 2007 (GMT)
Since there are no obections I think you should go ahead with the change, and any objectors should speak now or forever hold thier peace!!! John 19:57, 21 May 2007 (GMT)
Someone should implement the change. -- Isselmere-Nieland 22:22, 15 July 2007 (GMT)

Hmmm... For "historic" currencies, would that be exclusively articles about currencies that, in character, are no longer used; or would it include the currencies of ex-nations also? --Germanalasia 08:35, 16 July 2007 (GMT)

Currently, i'm thinking of tossing the currencies of ex-nations into the inactive/historic currencies, since I do not see how they could still being used if all the countries that used it ceased to exist. Still, you're bringing up a good point here. -swilatia 11:50, 16 July 2007 (GMT)

NPOV Change Implementation

I implemented this change yesterday... We'll see how it turns out. --Germanalasia 15:38, 19 July 2007 (GMT)

Multinational Currency Size

Is there any particular reason why multinational currencies need to be in a bigger font than the national ones? Many national currencies in NS are much more prominent than some of these regional/organizational units. Make them both smaller font. The USD distinction is fine by me. Omigodtheykilledkenny 15:44, 21 July 2007 (GMT)
I put multinational currencies larger as there are fewer of them, and each is effectively the national currency of several nations (whereas, of course, each national currency is the national currency of only one nation)... I'll put them both in the smaller font, as you are concerned... --Germanalasia 16:59, 21 July 2007 (GMT)

"Active" and "Inactive"

The word "[a]ctive" has been added to the names of the first two currency sections... Is noting a currency is "active" in contrast to one that is "inactive" necessary? What I mean is, if a currency is not "Inactive/Historic", then surely it must be active? --Germanalasia 00:14, 22 July 2007 (GMT)

I very well understand your point, but I felt that adding in "Active" would make it more clear that the categories are mutually exclusive. Besides, having "Active" there was the original idea. I just thought that since both the active/inactive and nation/international proposals would result in categories larger then the "minor currencies" section, so they should be combined, with the "active" section split, but the "inactive" section kept whole because there are less articles on inactive currencies. --swilatia 00:41, 22 July 2007 (GMT)

Definition of 'Multinational'

Is a Multi-National currency one which is only used within one or more independant states, or could it also apply to currencies used in master and puppet nations?

I would think master-puppet currencies would count as multinational... Although I wouldn't think currencies used by a nation at home and in occupied foreign areas would count - colonies, I would expect so. --Germanalasia 18:30, 17 August 2007 (GMT)
I feel the term "multinational currencies" should apply to currencies used as the first (i.e., the official national) currency within more than one independent state (including that state's dependencies, colonies, etc., as part of the state itself), such as the euro, as opposed to currencies that have some international standing as hard currency; in other words, a currency that is legal tender in several countries (e.g., US dollar in both the US and Panama) rather than something that can be accepted (or not) in lieu of the official legal tender (e.g., pounds sterling and issues concerning). -- Isselmere-Nieland 18:48, 17 August 2007 (GMT)

We're really talking about whether use in dependencies makes a currency international. But i agree with you that use as secondary tender should not place the currency as an international one. --swilatia 15:27, 23 August 2007 (GMT)