Template talk:Currencies

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 (6/1/4)

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

Biased

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. - 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)

Not Biased

1. 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)

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)

Comments/Questions

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)

1. • 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)
2. 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)
3. 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)

4. 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)