Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Currencies"
Neo-Erusea (Talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
#: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$), a fiat (gold is better in electronics than in silly bullion bars) and a weak currency (see first). Other suggestions, e.g., by countries using the currency, the strength of the economy, amount of international trade, etc., seem equally problematic and not helpful to the goal: getting a better written and more interesting wiki. | #:As others have noted, bias or the perception of bias lies in the use of potentially loaded and unexplicitly defined terms like “major” and “minor.” Several proposals have tried to get around that by describing two to four types of currency, but then you get into problems of multiple applicability of categories. E.g., my [[Denkmark]] is simultaneously a stable (until third geek’s NSeconomy seemed to fry out, I was stabilised ~Ð200 to the US$), 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). | #: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 | + | #:If you like the incentive structure, why not fix the number of major and minor currencies (also a good technical idea, or yo |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + |
Revision as of 13:56, 4 September 2006
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)
Contents
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 (6/2/4)
Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes (~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.
Biased
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. - Star Talk. 11:12, 10 May 2006 (GMT)
- 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)
- I think it's biased too, and would prefer to see a simple alphabetical list. This United State 06:44, 12 May 2006 (GMT)
- 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)
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)
- 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 yo