This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The name of this currency is completely dismal and British PM John Major showed his dismay at the lack of imagination after the meeting where it was announced. What were the names considered? Please incorporate something about that. I think 'florin' 'mark' and 'ecu' were considered. My preference would have been 'crown', as nearly all the eurozone states plus GB, Estonia ('kroon') Denmark and Sweden have used the term for coinage. (German/Austrian 'Krone', Czech 'koruna', etc) In the latter two, it still is the present currency ('krone'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.69.173 ( talk) 23:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following because it appears to contradict what the Bank of Finland says: http://www.bof.fi/en/setelit_ja_kolikot/eurokolikot/suomalaisten_kolikoiden_lyontimaarat
1- and 2-cent coins have been minted in the Netherlands, but never in Finland.
-- Boson ( talk) 06:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear from the article to what extent individual countries can create Euro. Do they have to get permission from the central bank ? or does each country do as it pleases?
23 march 2010 jimmy
Anybody think this page is worth having? It sounded good in my head but I'm not sure if it'll go anywhere interesting so I haven't moved it from my sandbox yet: Currencies of the European Union.20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Why my modification of current euro users has been removed ? Euro is official currency (with the agreement of the european commission) of french TAAF, St Martin and St barth. It also the official currency of british bases in Cyprus (also with EU agrement)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.155.201.159 ( talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify actually, as there is the question of whether French territories outside the EU are part of the issuing area - I'd say yes so I propose this;
| using_countries =
| unofficial_users =
- J.Logan` t: 10:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
What about uninhabited locations (such as Clipperton)? Euro may be legal tender on paper, but there's no one there doing any euro transactions. Should the lists be based on actual usage; that is, should we only list areas if there are people there actually using the currency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 21:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In Antartica, there is several bases from Eurozone States:
- Aboa / Finland
- Condordia / France & Italy
- Dumont d'Urville / France
- Gabriel de Castilla / Spain
- Juan Carlos 1st / Spain
- Princess Elisabeth / Belgium
- Neumayer III / Germany
- Kohnen / Germany
- Zucchelli / Italy —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.122.122.197 (
talk) 12:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
No need for a Finnish footnote, but otherwise fine. Alandia has always used the same currency as the rest of Finland, so nothing strange there. ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 20:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
Request for comments/collaboration on writing a chapter on the above mentioned topic
I notice often € and other currencies, s.a. $ and Pound Sterling are quoted till 4 digits after the komma, which makes sense as there is a large market that e.g. quoting prices of commodities e.g. potatoes upto 4 digits after the komma as they are often quoted in Euro cents. We need an official way to write down Euro cents: €c or €cents or Euro cents or Euro Cents or even c€ ... like you'd have grams=g and milli grams = mg ... and on the other side of the komma: kg. What do you think, which one should we go for?
And we have to make sure people quoting prices in c€ to do that upto 2 figures after the komma: 7,85 c€ to be concistent with the 4 digit €: 0,0785 € = 7,85 c€.
On the other side of the scale, k€ and M€ are often needed to in this world of upscaling under the Agenda21 and Low Carbon Economy.
Here's my assist to start a paragraph on this topic:
€, c€, k€, M€ and numbers of digits after the digital sign
There is a worldwide agreement that currencies like the €, $, etc. are quoted upto 4 digits after the digital sign. There is a necessity in many sectors to quote the € in Euro cents and kilo Euro, Mega Euro. To be congruent in logic, people in sectors that need to quote prices in Euro cents are requested to do so as follows: 7,89 c€ and not 7,9 c€. Because 7,89 c€ is in line with the logic of quoting € upto 4 digitals after the decimal sign: 0,0789 € and in line with the directives of the EU Comissionar on the protection of consumers, avoiding that rounding up decimals result in large absolute sums not being directed to the consumer yet into the pockets of traders, not even the producers.
The c€ follows the logic of SI for e.g. 7,89 grams = 0,0799 kilo grams = 0,0799 kg
This logic is also used as a directive for sectors needing to quote or work in large numbers, for them it is recommended to use k€, M€ and dropping any reference to after digit numbers, which - in mathematics - suggest to the reader the numbers have a precision to 2 or 4 digits after the decimal sign.
An email has to be sent to the ISO organisation and to the European Comission, DG on Communication, DG Consumer Protection, DG Trade to help write and implement this directive and oblidge ISO to write the directive and make sure it is know worldwide. I've sent an email to EU-DG Communication to Claudia CANNEVARI on the topic and requesting her help to push this at the ISO organisation. Working on Agenda21-Chapter IV: Means of Implementation / Bringing money to the citizen/consumer. -- SvenAERTS ( talk) 11:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Red King ( talk) 11:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Red King ( talk) 23:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As was mentioned by someone in archive 6, no one in Ireland who speaks Irish uses the word "eoró". We only ever use "euro" in Irish. As someone who speaks Irish, I can vouch for the fact that the common everyday spelling for the currency in Irish is euro. The Irish government only ever uses "euro" in the Irish language, the education system teaches "euro" as the correct spelling, and the language's regulatory body, Fóras na Gaeilge, uses "euro" as does focal.ie, the only online dictionary endorsed by Fóras na Gaeilge. With this in mind, I am removing "eoró" from this article. If anyone can give a good reason or reference for its inclusion, please do inform us. Dennisc24 ( talk) 13:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You make a fair case but I do have a good reason because in Monaghan even though the Irish language is not widely spoken here, they do use eoró when speaking. I think it should be reinstated into the article, in fairness you can't say no one and delete the word "eoró" when I made a case saying that it is used, in north Monaghan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacsearraigBhoy ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
How can you say that people use the word "eoró" when speaking, considering that it would be pronounced in much the same way?? Unless you have witnessed it in written form, it can be very hard to say that "eoró" is used. The last census (2006) recorded that 39.6% of Monaghan's 55,816 inhabitants could speak Irish - 22,103 people. Even if every one of those people chose to use "eoró", I would think that it can hardly justify that the word should be included in the infobox for a currency used by 329,000,000 people. Dennisc24 ( talk) 12:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
In The Times of 25 August 1838, from a report of a speech by IP Cory
'I should be unwilling to close this paper (on decimal currency) without advertising to the advantage which might be derived from a general convention dollar of all the civilized kingdoms, bearing the insignia of each separate kingdom upon its obverse, and some general conventional symbol upon its reverse. ... (Suggested countries involved included France, Austria, Saxony, Bohemia, and Sicily and Naples) ... it would not only facilitate our commerce as an instrument of exchange, but would eventually become the basis upon which a general convention dollar would ere long be current throughout the world.'
Would this be a sufficiently close description to make the Euro unpatentable? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Craigzomack has added "European" as a prefix in the infobox. My first thought is that no one calls it that, it isn't know as such and as the sole currency with that name, and a name relating to its area, it serves no purpose other than to look odd. However, the usual conventions are for some kind of prefix, maybe "EU Euro" so rather than revert, what does everyone else feel about this. Is there a prefix we an use that doesn't make it look silly?- J.Logan` t: 13:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Actually, I am going to revert pending other feedback, there is a precedent: Renminbi.- J.Logan` t: 14:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Ja, Hallo :-), I Thought It Was A Good Idea, As It Is European, It`s Not Like It Is Used In Africa ?, I Think "EU Euro", Is A Good Idea:
Craigzomack
This article never mentions the risk of an EMU breakup. This has been a concern ever since the creation of the currency. Maybe this should be addressed. Tony ( talk) 15:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Very simple. The article should only be about facts, not speculations based on hatred, jealousy and general wishful thinking for EMU to break apart. If it should happen then and only then should it be mentioned. By the same token, why don't articles on the dollar or the English pound talk about breakup of those currencies. Whatever force that could break apart the euro could also break apart the dollar and pound as well.
Even though euro-haters are encouraged by the fiscal problems presently in some EU countries, one should note that a default by any one of them would hurt the dollar and pound more. The EU bankers were very clever when lending money to the troubled nations - they insured (credit default swaps) those loans with banks outside the eurozone, mostly US and British. This assures that if there is a default, the euro is protected and the burden of the default falls on the insurers. The US & UK banks are not in a position to pay the insurance should a default happen and would literally topple their respective economies. The eurozone would suffer some shock, but would recover quickly.
Despite the problems in the eurozone countries, these countries do continue to manufacture and produce goods that are in demand in the world and bring in money. This will help recapitalize the EU economy in the event of any effects from a default. The US & UK produce nothing and have no means to bring in money to restore their economies when they do indeed fail.
Those who wish for a breakup won't see it, but they will see the US & UK fall hard.
Before the creation of the Euro, there were concerns about the viability of the project: [3] [4]
This was not limited to American newspapers: [5]
Newspapers don't determine a nation's fiscal policy. They are there to spread any vicious lie that the ignorant will believe and continue to buy their papers.
This is currently talked about by respectable newspapers: [6]
Who determines if a newspaper is respectable? Is it considered respectable only when it agrees with one's personal but biased opinion?
This is actually a fundamental problem of a currency union. This is why Germany insisted on the Stability and Growth Pact. This article nowhere mentioned any of this, which is a problem. I am not saying that a breakup will happen (I have no idea), but it is not good to hide it either. People are mentioning it. As for the form, I don't really mind if it's only in one location as long as this article is not written as cheer leading from the various EU governments. Tony ( talk) 05:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The eurozone is not a currency union. In a currency union each nation maintains their own currency but agree to accept the others currency at an agreed exchange rate in their own country. This is not the situation in Europe. Europe got rid of their old currencies and now have one single currency. There is not multiple currencies united together. The euro is controlled by the ECB not any individual nation. The the rules and conditions of a traditional currency union don't apply to the euro. Only an ignorant person would make comments relating the euro to a currency union.
Merkel is openly considering excluding Greece by the way: [9] Tony ( talk) 14:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Very undemocratic to stifle the very real possibility that this experiment is unfeasible or unviable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 ( talk) 03:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Reuters article on the meeting: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2515219020100226
BusinessWeek article on the DoJustice investigation: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-03/u-s-said-to-tell-hedge-funds-to-save-euro-records-update2-.html
Bloomberg article on the investigation: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGwpiEXSgoxs&pos=3
Wall Street Journal article on the Hedge Funds' 'ganging' of euro. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748703795004575087741848074392.html -- AaThinker ( talk) 06:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad, didn't see the dot after the 1:1 - J.Logan` t: 10:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This year's all time low (so far) was on 8 April (1.3296) according to the source given, not on 23 April (1.3311 against the USD). I corrected this. According to the same source (ECB) the long term average is at 1.1821 by the way. This comes close to the rate when the euro was introduced (1.1789). One year ago (23 April 2009) the euro was at 1.3050 (without Greek drama). There is still a long way to its all time low of 0.8252 - which was very good for exporters by the way. Just one more fact: Greece makes up for 2.6 % of eurozone GDP (data of 2008). -- 77.181.220.52 ( talk) 22:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It is very common to accept euro in many countries which are not currently using it (for instance in Czech Republic). The situtation is really not rare and it is not only policy of big companies. I think there should be at least a small section in this article dedicated to that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.11.4 ( talk) 00:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe it makes more sense to have first the "Introduction" / history of the Euro, followed by its' characteristics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.6.58 ( talk) 13:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Though I agree, it seems the French are rigid on doing the opposite. It is not easy to believe they were the ones trying to teach us the metric system. I have been on the internet pages of Moulin Rouges. It is beside the point to say it was pricy, but when you do not know were the € is supposed to be.( 83.108.30.141 ( talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC))
I have recently added an explicit indication of the plural at the very beginning of the article. I have all reasons to believe this decision will be contested in the future, so here are the reasons why I believe the plural (in that form) should stay:
Anticipating other arguments along the lines of WP:NOT#DICT, please see WP:BURO and WP:IAR. -- Gutza T T+ 22:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Here in Portugal, the 0.01€ and 0.02€ are actually very common -- retailers rely heavily on x.99€-type prices. I believe the first statement in the article's infobox is incorrect. Nomad ( talk) 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. Well, that first statement sure is misleading, I'll tell you that. ;) I agree with you that labeling the coin usage as frequent or infrequent is a bit odd -- unless, of course, there is solid data supporting that. Thanks for clarifying this! Nomad ( talk) 20:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone clarify the situation regarding Setec? In its own article it's listed as no longer being a printer, yet we continue to list it here. Is it a printer or not? - Estoy Aquí ( talk) 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The note 13 gives the impression that the status of Mayotte changes something regarding the Euro in 2011. Indeed, the euro was the only currency of Mayotte since its introduction and not since 2011. 90.58.248.124 ( talk) 08:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Estonia is full member of eurozone since 1st january, but on map I still can't see Estonia as blue. When I open the file, it shows correct map. Where's the problem. I can't solve this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.82.183 ( talk) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I have made an edit to the optimal currency are subsection to reflect the very real possibility of a country leaving the euro. The reference claiming the chance was slim, while only 4 years old, was written in an entirely different economic climate and I didn't think it would be right to leave it completely unchallenged. If someone could find a better counter claim than the weak one I found it would be appreciated. Aaronsharpe ( talk) 00:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any comments on any possibilities. It isn't fact and is only speculation based on personal bias, hatred and jealousy of the euro. Such comments should be removed or better yet never added. Articles should only contain facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.207.203 ( talk) 12:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
At least some attention should be made to the European sovereign debt crisis, which could very well mean the end of the Euro. The whole article manages not to even mention it! Joepnl ( talk) 01:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: — Tom Morris ( talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm going to review this article for GA. I'm not an economist so I'm looking forward to learning something about eurozone economics and the politics of eurozone membership (potential bias: I'm British and was pro-euro, but given the Greek debt crisis, I think we may have dodged a bullet in not joining!).
Anyway, enough chatter, here are some issues. If these can be fixed, I'll pass, until then, on hold.
From the ' Investment' section:
This sentence is unfinished or otherwise unreadable.
It would be good if there was consistency of capitalisation: "eurozone" and "Eurozone". Pick one, preferably based on some linguistic evidence, and stick with it.
It'd also be useful if a rough explanation of how adherence or not to optimum currency area theory by U.S. economists shaped the view of the euro. It sort of makes sense to me, a non-economist. The rest of that paragraph goes on to say that economists were skeptical of the unification: are they skeptical of the unification process (as in, they are now no longer skeptical, they were just skeptical of the process of transitioning from the national currencies to the Euro) or of the whole idea of unified pan-national currencies.
From the one-line
Tourism section:
What's "tourism flow"? Is that the amount of tourist travel or the amount of tourist spending or tourism-related trade? Not sure if it's an economic term of art or not.
One thing I think is a glaring omission from the article is the politics of Euro membership. There was obviously huge political fervour in countries like the UK in deciding whether or not to join. It may be appropriate to describe, say, the political wrangling that went on in different countries to decide whether or not to join the euro, and how that played out in terms of partisan or political affiliation. Generally, anti-Euro sentiment in Britain has been the preserve of the Conservatives although it was on Labour's watch that the decision to not join was taken, and if I recall correctly, Gordon Brown said that it was purely for fiscal reasons. But people seem to have plenty of political reasons (that, say, the pound is a core part of British identity) to oppose or support eurozone membership as well as the fiscal reasons. (The inclusion of this may be more appropriate for History of the Euro rather than Euro.) — Tom Morris ( talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Passed. I've passed this for GA. Well done! —
Tom Morris (
talk) 15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Tom! – Plarem ( User | talk | contribs) 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The "Coins and banknotes" sub-section currently has " Some of the highest denominations such as the €500 are not issued in all countries due to criminal use . . ."
-- Boson ( talk) 09:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Are the smallest coins really "frequently used" everywhere?
And at least in Finland the 100, 200 and 500 euro notes are quite rare. I haven't myself even ever had any of those. I see the 100 and 200 notes few times a month, but it is maximum five times total I've seen the 500 euro note. It might be different in other countries, but isn't it actually original research to say which are frequent and which are rare? Since there is no citation.
85.217.15.10 (
talk) 23:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is there a specific section on this topic? Why are American economist singled out? This has the appearance of being part of a juvenile internet forum trans-Atlantic spat about who's currency is better. Is there solid academic backing for singling out American economists vs. any other economists in this period? Maybe there is, but it seems like an odd subsection in a general article on the euro. I would advocate a reformulation of the section to a more general discussion. -- Peregrine981 ( talk) 10:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that every member state issues Euro. How is it determined how much Euro can issue a country every year ? Srelu ( talk) 01:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This section reads like POV or original research. "Low levels of inflation are the hallmark of stable and modern economies." says who? Does it imply that there will be no inflation in the future? Are there such documented tendencies? "Because a high level of inflation acts as a tax ... it is generally viewed as undesirable." Very few would argue, common knowledge, should this really be mentioned in Wiki-article? It's like saying "Because diseases decrease the quality of life they are generally viewed as undesirable." Statement that Euro Bank's task is to maintain low inflation implies that other banks don't care or it's known how to keep inflation low. Are there such references?
I think this sections should be either rewritten or deleted. Yurivict ( talk) 04:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It's been discussed before, but I'd like to add a new source [10] that says: "Without a dramatic change of heart by the ECB and by European leaders, the single currency could break up within weeks". Now, we don't know the future, but in the present there are surely talks of a breakup. Tony ( talk) 17:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw this sentence in the article: "Moreover, private-sector indebtedness across the euro area is also markedly lower than in the highly leveraged Anglo-Saxon economies."
I do not think the term Anglo-Saxon in this context should be appearing anywhere in this article, firstly because it is ambiguous (do you mean the British? The Americans? Both?) and secondly because it is a weasel word, used in Europe and particularly France, in a somewhat derogatory way towards the British (who are, of course, correctly referred to as "The British", having ceased to be Anglo-Saxon circa 1066). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.65.31 ( talk) 16:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The 'Issuing modalities' section includes this text: "The other 92% of the euro banknotes are issued by the NCBs in proportion to their respective shares in the capital key of the ECB [43]". This is the first mention of "capital key". What's that? Thanks -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 02:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC) All I could find is this: http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/ecbhistoryrolefunctions2004en.pdf -- and it didn't help me. Jo3sampl ( talk) 02:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The Failure of the Euro; The Little Currency That Couldn’t by Martin Feldstein January/February 2012 Foreign Affairs 99.19.44.155 ( talk) 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
What wait help? The Netherlands didn't get downgraded yet did it? Joepnl ( talk) 01:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Standard & Poor's is affirming the 'AAA' long-term and 'A-1+' short-term unsolicited sovereign credit ratings on The Netherlands.
I've proposed that EUR, Rome be moved to EUR, you can comment on the proposed move here. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the legend to the graph in the section entitled "European sovereign debt crisis" is "Budget deficit of the euro area compared to USA and total OECD." The graph seems to show the euro area compared with the USA and the UK. Am I missing something, or should the legend be altered? Ondewelle ( talk) 09:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
that really should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 ( talk) 16:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Under the section 'trade', only the trade inside the eurozone is mentioned. Shall we also explain how the Euro has impacted on export from the Euro zone? Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 10:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Under Macroeconomic stability, the second sentence claims that 'high level of inflation acts as a tax (seigniorage) ...
Following from its definition, it can only be called seigniorage if the government itself 'prints' this money, AND adds it to its own coffers. However, if inflation (high or low) is allowed to happen by allowing the amount of money in the general economy to increase, then this is not seigniorage, as long as the government does not pocket the extra money.
Nobody these days argues for governments, selfprinting their income. But allowing some inflation as a way to press down a too strong currency is a standard IMF prescription for stalling economies. The second option deserves objective attention, and not to be discarded as seigniorage.
Shall we throw out the word? Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 11:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
First a general compliment: The Euro-article is really good quality!
Regarding the three graphs in the section Exchange Rate: The choice of coins (Dollar, Yen and Swiss Franc) and the starting point obscure the enormous growth of the price of the euro since it replaced national coins.
The euro started to be the euro as defined in the first sentence of this article (..and is the official currency of ...) in early 2002. Before that, some of the main benefits of the euro (such as less transaction costs and absolute certainty of Euro-wide value of any coins) had not yet materialized. Should not the graphs then also start in 2002? Or should at least the three preceding years be in dots?
Second point is that the three chosen coins suggest something very different from the text next to it. The graphs suggest some gains here,(to the dollar) some losses there (to the Swiss Franc). But the text (in slightly unclear terms) confirms that the Euro, as seen from most of our main trading partners, became much more expensive since its introduction in 2002. Japan is the only significant exception, and Switzerland is not a main trading partner. Their extremely strong currency is an odd exception, caused by the particularities of their economy (and, some would argue, tax and risk evasion in the rest of the world). So both of the currently used graphs (Yen and SWF) are highly unrepresentative for the price, our main trading partners have to pay for a Euro. UK is a much bigger trading partner, and its coin has done completely the opposite. Shall we instead put the graphs of Europe's three biggest trading partners? Or is there a graph of the value of the Euro, expressed as a weighted averige of the coin of our main trading partners? (The text suggests it exists, and that would neatly illustrate the text) Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 10:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
worth linking to? http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/12/euro-cent-money-shot.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandisk26 ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I added some lines on the cost, especially for endebted countries, resulting from high macroeconomic stability. I think its generally accepted economic reasoning, it was missing, making the argument one-sided, and I hope everyone accepts. Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 10:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- VERY BADLY WRITTEN, Needs be to rewritten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.24.169 ( talk) 17:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess the article should cover this eventuality and the potential repercussions. Thoughts? Malick78 ( talk) 20:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
There isn't going to be any break-up. That was pure wishful thinking by Americans and English outside the euro sphere of influence. On the other hand, the euro is expanding again. Latvia will be euroised in 2014 and Lithuania in 2015.
68.105.199.216 (
talk) 13:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This. That was only raised in the anglo media. Confusing wishes with reality does not make an encyclopedia article.
-- 83.56.229.98 ( talk) 11:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
"As of September 2012, with more than €915 billion in circulation, the euro has the highest combined value of banknotes and coins in circulation in the world, having surpassed the US dollar."
is billion here 10^9 or 10^12 ? the cited source (ECB publication) also uses the word "billion", without more specification at: https://stats.ecb.europa.eu/stats/download/bkn_notes_val/bkn_notes_val/bkn_notes_val.pdf
Can the explicit number (without verb ambiguity) be found somewhere on the ECB website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.88.146 ( talk) 10:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Today 1€=1.306$.Can't you set the cross of the 356 a.C. to be closer to reality?)))) 151.40.72.141 ( talk) 19:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
No, this is an english article and everything that makes the euro or the EU look bad must be used.
-- 83.56.229.98 ( talk) 11:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Some information on French use of the word "centimes" was recently added to the section Linguistic issues. The section specifically uses the {{ Main}} template to link the sub-article Linguistic issues concerning the euro, which describes usage in 50 different languages. Where such a sub-article is provided, the invoking section should use WP:Summary style and not go into details. The details in question are already in the sub-article.It would not be appropriate to have details of all 50 languages, especially since the linguistic aspects are not a major issue in the top-level article on the euro. Is there a good reason to make an exception for French? -- Boson ( talk) 08:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The graphs in Exchange Rate section seem a little misleading as the period from 1999-2002 charts the value of the European Currency Unit and not the Euro. I know that's sorta a technicality, but I think the way the ECU was valued was significantly different from how the Euro was valued. Including everything in the same chart seems a little misleading. NickCT ( talk) 14:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I find any mention that it was pretty well know in prior that euro-area is not optimum currency area. AFAIK it has been pretty established in literature before and after the adoption. Also, the Rose- branch of literature (anticipated increase in trade) seems to be missing. After all it was one of the core rationales in adopting Euro. Virtually all studies on Euro mention Rose literature. I might be adding something about both when I have time. ViperFace ( talk) 17:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
We are currently told in the lead that as of August 2014, there are more euros in circulation than any other currency. No source is given for this, but 'note 18' acts as an apparent source. This note is even worse, beginning 'As of April 2013', and then giving a whole series of figures from 2009. I neither know nor care enough to try to fix any of this, but somebody should, because its self-evident absurdity is very damaging to the credibility of the article. Tlhslobus ( talk) 12:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The categories for the countries where the Euro circulates is perfectly legitimate.
The Euro is even one of the currencies of Zimbabwe.
Yes,the Euro is a currency of the Commonwealth of Nations - as it circulates in both Cyprus and Malta. - ( 203.211.74.172 ( talk) 04:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Euro. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought the word euro (derived from a proper noun) would be capitalized. Kortoso ( talk) 18:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The infobox lists the names for the euro in those EU languages where the spelling is different from euro. These are: евро (Bulgarian), ευρώ (Greek), euró (Hungarian), eiro (Latvian), euras (Lithuanian), ewro (Maltese), and evro (Slovene); Hungarian euró wasn't there originally, but I've just added it to the group. Do you think евро and euró should stay, given that Bulgaria and Hungary don't yet use the euro as their currency? Notice that the Bulgarian Cyrillic name ЕВРО (uppercase) is featured on the newer series of euro banknotes, while the Hungarian name, like the other Latin-script names different form euro, is not. -- Theurgist ( talk) 23:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
A currency (coins and notes) is a tangible asset. How can the Euro article be classified as a "good article" when there is no section whatsoever about where the currencies and/or notes are manufactured?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.3.136 ( talk) 18:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Ireland has a mint that is used to manufacture some of the monies, particularly 5 euro notes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.240.177 ( talk) 00:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Euro. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Please do not forget the special gebitte at moneytraray accmen this to write down. (Without their own euro coins) French Guiana Guadeloupen Martinique mayotte Saint-Barthélemy Saint-pierre and Miquelon reunion Madeira Canaries Azores
"Passive" Euro users: (Without their own euro coins)
Kosovo Montenegro
Euro as by currency:
Lichtenstein Seychelles Zimbabwe Northern Ireland Gribralta On the border with Poland and Denmark
Euro except:
Aland Islands Büssingen at home listening Helgoland Capione di Italio Melila Ceuta
but I live in Germany and am a Euro expert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.193.84 ( talk) 06:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Euro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The article says nothing about 2014, but this was the worst year in Euro record. -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 13:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Euro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Euro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The article says there is no indication of what NCB issued the banknote. This could be true, depending on what we take the word "show" to mean. The serial numbers do "show" the NCB for the first series, but this is not exactly part of the banknote proper, since it is the part that varies on each note. - Estoy Aquí ( talk) 23:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Why does it imply these two are different? Greek is written in Cyrillic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.251.64 ( talk) 20:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I think this article would be more useful if it indicated HOW to display the euro symbol. I'd guess others, like me, look for that information (but don't find it).The euro symbol, Unicode codepoint U+20AC, can be rendered on a Windows PC using the alt+keypad process, if the application supports it. i.e. alt+127 (Holding down the left alt key on the keyboard, pressing 127 on the keypad, and releasing the alt key) will render (display on the monitor or output device) the symbol. Some Windows applications, e.g. Microsoft Word also support some fonts which allow the unicode decimal alt+8364 to be rendered as the euro symbol. Given the ubiquity of Windows, I think it's worthwhile to note this factoid. This type of short-cut isn't necessarily going to continue to work, so it should be qualified with the OS date, if included, I think. It might be that the two other major OS`s Linux (in its many versions) and Apple's macOS also provide such a short-cut, IDK. 98.21.219.152 ( talk) 23:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Over at Template talk:Infobox currency § Infobox Lists: long & trivial there is a discussion on the huge size of the lists in the infobox here: 110 lines! (And all unfolded when in mobile...). - DePiep ( talk) 16:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
sectionlink}}
for these lists?
DePiep (
talk) 20:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
local_name=
, I can't see how to do that without it looking a mess and just filling in the template for the sake of filling in the template. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 11:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Should we have a section explaining the rules for issuing new money, who gets it, what is the collateral (if any), when it happens, how often it happens, etc? It seems no currency article except for cryptocurrencies has this well explained and sorted out, which I miss because that is something that is very important encyclopedic knowledge of public interest. Lvella ( talk) 13:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Scheller
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The name of this currency is completely dismal and British PM John Major showed his dismay at the lack of imagination after the meeting where it was announced. What were the names considered? Please incorporate something about that. I think 'florin' 'mark' and 'ecu' were considered. My preference would have been 'crown', as nearly all the eurozone states plus GB, Estonia ('kroon') Denmark and Sweden have used the term for coinage. (German/Austrian 'Krone', Czech 'koruna', etc) In the latter two, it still is the present currency ('krone'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.69.173 ( talk) 23:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following because it appears to contradict what the Bank of Finland says: http://www.bof.fi/en/setelit_ja_kolikot/eurokolikot/suomalaisten_kolikoiden_lyontimaarat
1- and 2-cent coins have been minted in the Netherlands, but never in Finland.
-- Boson ( talk) 06:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear from the article to what extent individual countries can create Euro. Do they have to get permission from the central bank ? or does each country do as it pleases?
23 march 2010 jimmy
Anybody think this page is worth having? It sounded good in my head but I'm not sure if it'll go anywhere interesting so I haven't moved it from my sandbox yet: Currencies of the European Union.20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Why my modification of current euro users has been removed ? Euro is official currency (with the agreement of the european commission) of french TAAF, St Martin and St barth. It also the official currency of british bases in Cyprus (also with EU agrement)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.155.201.159 ( talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify actually, as there is the question of whether French territories outside the EU are part of the issuing area - I'd say yes so I propose this;
| using_countries =
| unofficial_users =
- J.Logan` t: 10:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
What about uninhabited locations (such as Clipperton)? Euro may be legal tender on paper, but there's no one there doing any euro transactions. Should the lists be based on actual usage; that is, should we only list areas if there are people there actually using the currency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 21:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In Antartica, there is several bases from Eurozone States:
- Aboa / Finland
- Condordia / France & Italy
- Dumont d'Urville / France
- Gabriel de Castilla / Spain
- Juan Carlos 1st / Spain
- Princess Elisabeth / Belgium
- Neumayer III / Germany
- Kohnen / Germany
- Zucchelli / Italy —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.122.122.197 (
talk) 12:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
No need for a Finnish footnote, but otherwise fine. Alandia has always used the same currency as the rest of Finland, so nothing strange there. ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 20:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
Request for comments/collaboration on writing a chapter on the above mentioned topic
I notice often € and other currencies, s.a. $ and Pound Sterling are quoted till 4 digits after the komma, which makes sense as there is a large market that e.g. quoting prices of commodities e.g. potatoes upto 4 digits after the komma as they are often quoted in Euro cents. We need an official way to write down Euro cents: €c or €cents or Euro cents or Euro Cents or even c€ ... like you'd have grams=g and milli grams = mg ... and on the other side of the komma: kg. What do you think, which one should we go for?
And we have to make sure people quoting prices in c€ to do that upto 2 figures after the komma: 7,85 c€ to be concistent with the 4 digit €: 0,0785 € = 7,85 c€.
On the other side of the scale, k€ and M€ are often needed to in this world of upscaling under the Agenda21 and Low Carbon Economy.
Here's my assist to start a paragraph on this topic:
€, c€, k€, M€ and numbers of digits after the digital sign
There is a worldwide agreement that currencies like the €, $, etc. are quoted upto 4 digits after the digital sign. There is a necessity in many sectors to quote the € in Euro cents and kilo Euro, Mega Euro. To be congruent in logic, people in sectors that need to quote prices in Euro cents are requested to do so as follows: 7,89 c€ and not 7,9 c€. Because 7,89 c€ is in line with the logic of quoting € upto 4 digitals after the decimal sign: 0,0789 € and in line with the directives of the EU Comissionar on the protection of consumers, avoiding that rounding up decimals result in large absolute sums not being directed to the consumer yet into the pockets of traders, not even the producers.
The c€ follows the logic of SI for e.g. 7,89 grams = 0,0799 kilo grams = 0,0799 kg
This logic is also used as a directive for sectors needing to quote or work in large numbers, for them it is recommended to use k€, M€ and dropping any reference to after digit numbers, which - in mathematics - suggest to the reader the numbers have a precision to 2 or 4 digits after the decimal sign.
An email has to be sent to the ISO organisation and to the European Comission, DG on Communication, DG Consumer Protection, DG Trade to help write and implement this directive and oblidge ISO to write the directive and make sure it is know worldwide. I've sent an email to EU-DG Communication to Claudia CANNEVARI on the topic and requesting her help to push this at the ISO organisation. Working on Agenda21-Chapter IV: Means of Implementation / Bringing money to the citizen/consumer. -- SvenAERTS ( talk) 11:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Red King ( talk) 11:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Red King ( talk) 23:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As was mentioned by someone in archive 6, no one in Ireland who speaks Irish uses the word "eoró". We only ever use "euro" in Irish. As someone who speaks Irish, I can vouch for the fact that the common everyday spelling for the currency in Irish is euro. The Irish government only ever uses "euro" in the Irish language, the education system teaches "euro" as the correct spelling, and the language's regulatory body, Fóras na Gaeilge, uses "euro" as does focal.ie, the only online dictionary endorsed by Fóras na Gaeilge. With this in mind, I am removing "eoró" from this article. If anyone can give a good reason or reference for its inclusion, please do inform us. Dennisc24 ( talk) 13:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You make a fair case but I do have a good reason because in Monaghan even though the Irish language is not widely spoken here, they do use eoró when speaking. I think it should be reinstated into the article, in fairness you can't say no one and delete the word "eoró" when I made a case saying that it is used, in north Monaghan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacsearraigBhoy ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
How can you say that people use the word "eoró" when speaking, considering that it would be pronounced in much the same way?? Unless you have witnessed it in written form, it can be very hard to say that "eoró" is used. The last census (2006) recorded that 39.6% of Monaghan's 55,816 inhabitants could speak Irish - 22,103 people. Even if every one of those people chose to use "eoró", I would think that it can hardly justify that the word should be included in the infobox for a currency used by 329,000,000 people. Dennisc24 ( talk) 12:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
In The Times of 25 August 1838, from a report of a speech by IP Cory
'I should be unwilling to close this paper (on decimal currency) without advertising to the advantage which might be derived from a general convention dollar of all the civilized kingdoms, bearing the insignia of each separate kingdom upon its obverse, and some general conventional symbol upon its reverse. ... (Suggested countries involved included France, Austria, Saxony, Bohemia, and Sicily and Naples) ... it would not only facilitate our commerce as an instrument of exchange, but would eventually become the basis upon which a general convention dollar would ere long be current throughout the world.'
Would this be a sufficiently close description to make the Euro unpatentable? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Craigzomack has added "European" as a prefix in the infobox. My first thought is that no one calls it that, it isn't know as such and as the sole currency with that name, and a name relating to its area, it serves no purpose other than to look odd. However, the usual conventions are for some kind of prefix, maybe "EU Euro" so rather than revert, what does everyone else feel about this. Is there a prefix we an use that doesn't make it look silly?- J.Logan` t: 13:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Actually, I am going to revert pending other feedback, there is a precedent: Renminbi.- J.Logan` t: 14:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Ja, Hallo :-), I Thought It Was A Good Idea, As It Is European, It`s Not Like It Is Used In Africa ?, I Think "EU Euro", Is A Good Idea:
Craigzomack
This article never mentions the risk of an EMU breakup. This has been a concern ever since the creation of the currency. Maybe this should be addressed. Tony ( talk) 15:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Very simple. The article should only be about facts, not speculations based on hatred, jealousy and general wishful thinking for EMU to break apart. If it should happen then and only then should it be mentioned. By the same token, why don't articles on the dollar or the English pound talk about breakup of those currencies. Whatever force that could break apart the euro could also break apart the dollar and pound as well.
Even though euro-haters are encouraged by the fiscal problems presently in some EU countries, one should note that a default by any one of them would hurt the dollar and pound more. The EU bankers were very clever when lending money to the troubled nations - they insured (credit default swaps) those loans with banks outside the eurozone, mostly US and British. This assures that if there is a default, the euro is protected and the burden of the default falls on the insurers. The US & UK banks are not in a position to pay the insurance should a default happen and would literally topple their respective economies. The eurozone would suffer some shock, but would recover quickly.
Despite the problems in the eurozone countries, these countries do continue to manufacture and produce goods that are in demand in the world and bring in money. This will help recapitalize the EU economy in the event of any effects from a default. The US & UK produce nothing and have no means to bring in money to restore their economies when they do indeed fail.
Those who wish for a breakup won't see it, but they will see the US & UK fall hard.
Before the creation of the Euro, there were concerns about the viability of the project: [3] [4]
This was not limited to American newspapers: [5]
Newspapers don't determine a nation's fiscal policy. They are there to spread any vicious lie that the ignorant will believe and continue to buy their papers.
This is currently talked about by respectable newspapers: [6]
Who determines if a newspaper is respectable? Is it considered respectable only when it agrees with one's personal but biased opinion?
This is actually a fundamental problem of a currency union. This is why Germany insisted on the Stability and Growth Pact. This article nowhere mentioned any of this, which is a problem. I am not saying that a breakup will happen (I have no idea), but it is not good to hide it either. People are mentioning it. As for the form, I don't really mind if it's only in one location as long as this article is not written as cheer leading from the various EU governments. Tony ( talk) 05:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The eurozone is not a currency union. In a currency union each nation maintains their own currency but agree to accept the others currency at an agreed exchange rate in their own country. This is not the situation in Europe. Europe got rid of their old currencies and now have one single currency. There is not multiple currencies united together. The euro is controlled by the ECB not any individual nation. The the rules and conditions of a traditional currency union don't apply to the euro. Only an ignorant person would make comments relating the euro to a currency union.
Merkel is openly considering excluding Greece by the way: [9] Tony ( talk) 14:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Very undemocratic to stifle the very real possibility that this experiment is unfeasible or unviable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 ( talk) 03:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Reuters article on the meeting: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2515219020100226
BusinessWeek article on the DoJustice investigation: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-03/u-s-said-to-tell-hedge-funds-to-save-euro-records-update2-.html
Bloomberg article on the investigation: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGwpiEXSgoxs&pos=3
Wall Street Journal article on the Hedge Funds' 'ganging' of euro. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748703795004575087741848074392.html -- AaThinker ( talk) 06:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad, didn't see the dot after the 1:1 - J.Logan` t: 10:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This year's all time low (so far) was on 8 April (1.3296) according to the source given, not on 23 April (1.3311 against the USD). I corrected this. According to the same source (ECB) the long term average is at 1.1821 by the way. This comes close to the rate when the euro was introduced (1.1789). One year ago (23 April 2009) the euro was at 1.3050 (without Greek drama). There is still a long way to its all time low of 0.8252 - which was very good for exporters by the way. Just one more fact: Greece makes up for 2.6 % of eurozone GDP (data of 2008). -- 77.181.220.52 ( talk) 22:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It is very common to accept euro in many countries which are not currently using it (for instance in Czech Republic). The situtation is really not rare and it is not only policy of big companies. I think there should be at least a small section in this article dedicated to that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.11.4 ( talk) 00:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe it makes more sense to have first the "Introduction" / history of the Euro, followed by its' characteristics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.6.58 ( talk) 13:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Though I agree, it seems the French are rigid on doing the opposite. It is not easy to believe they were the ones trying to teach us the metric system. I have been on the internet pages of Moulin Rouges. It is beside the point to say it was pricy, but when you do not know were the € is supposed to be.( 83.108.30.141 ( talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC))
I have recently added an explicit indication of the plural at the very beginning of the article. I have all reasons to believe this decision will be contested in the future, so here are the reasons why I believe the plural (in that form) should stay:
Anticipating other arguments along the lines of WP:NOT#DICT, please see WP:BURO and WP:IAR. -- Gutza T T+ 22:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Here in Portugal, the 0.01€ and 0.02€ are actually very common -- retailers rely heavily on x.99€-type prices. I believe the first statement in the article's infobox is incorrect. Nomad ( talk) 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. Well, that first statement sure is misleading, I'll tell you that. ;) I agree with you that labeling the coin usage as frequent or infrequent is a bit odd -- unless, of course, there is solid data supporting that. Thanks for clarifying this! Nomad ( talk) 20:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone clarify the situation regarding Setec? In its own article it's listed as no longer being a printer, yet we continue to list it here. Is it a printer or not? - Estoy Aquí ( talk) 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The note 13 gives the impression that the status of Mayotte changes something regarding the Euro in 2011. Indeed, the euro was the only currency of Mayotte since its introduction and not since 2011. 90.58.248.124 ( talk) 08:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Estonia is full member of eurozone since 1st january, but on map I still can't see Estonia as blue. When I open the file, it shows correct map. Where's the problem. I can't solve this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.82.183 ( talk) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I have made an edit to the optimal currency are subsection to reflect the very real possibility of a country leaving the euro. The reference claiming the chance was slim, while only 4 years old, was written in an entirely different economic climate and I didn't think it would be right to leave it completely unchallenged. If someone could find a better counter claim than the weak one I found it would be appreciated. Aaronsharpe ( talk) 00:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any comments on any possibilities. It isn't fact and is only speculation based on personal bias, hatred and jealousy of the euro. Such comments should be removed or better yet never added. Articles should only contain facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.207.203 ( talk) 12:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
At least some attention should be made to the European sovereign debt crisis, which could very well mean the end of the Euro. The whole article manages not to even mention it! Joepnl ( talk) 01:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: — Tom Morris ( talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm going to review this article for GA. I'm not an economist so I'm looking forward to learning something about eurozone economics and the politics of eurozone membership (potential bias: I'm British and was pro-euro, but given the Greek debt crisis, I think we may have dodged a bullet in not joining!).
Anyway, enough chatter, here are some issues. If these can be fixed, I'll pass, until then, on hold.
From the ' Investment' section:
This sentence is unfinished or otherwise unreadable.
It would be good if there was consistency of capitalisation: "eurozone" and "Eurozone". Pick one, preferably based on some linguistic evidence, and stick with it.
It'd also be useful if a rough explanation of how adherence or not to optimum currency area theory by U.S. economists shaped the view of the euro. It sort of makes sense to me, a non-economist. The rest of that paragraph goes on to say that economists were skeptical of the unification: are they skeptical of the unification process (as in, they are now no longer skeptical, they were just skeptical of the process of transitioning from the national currencies to the Euro) or of the whole idea of unified pan-national currencies.
From the one-line
Tourism section:
What's "tourism flow"? Is that the amount of tourist travel or the amount of tourist spending or tourism-related trade? Not sure if it's an economic term of art or not.
One thing I think is a glaring omission from the article is the politics of Euro membership. There was obviously huge political fervour in countries like the UK in deciding whether or not to join. It may be appropriate to describe, say, the political wrangling that went on in different countries to decide whether or not to join the euro, and how that played out in terms of partisan or political affiliation. Generally, anti-Euro sentiment in Britain has been the preserve of the Conservatives although it was on Labour's watch that the decision to not join was taken, and if I recall correctly, Gordon Brown said that it was purely for fiscal reasons. But people seem to have plenty of political reasons (that, say, the pound is a core part of British identity) to oppose or support eurozone membership as well as the fiscal reasons. (The inclusion of this may be more appropriate for History of the Euro rather than Euro.) — Tom Morris ( talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Passed. I've passed this for GA. Well done! —
Tom Morris (
talk) 15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Tom! – Plarem ( User | talk | contribs) 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The "Coins and banknotes" sub-section currently has " Some of the highest denominations such as the €500 are not issued in all countries due to criminal use . . ."
-- Boson ( talk) 09:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Are the smallest coins really "frequently used" everywhere?
And at least in Finland the 100, 200 and 500 euro notes are quite rare. I haven't myself even ever had any of those. I see the 100 and 200 notes few times a month, but it is maximum five times total I've seen the 500 euro note. It might be different in other countries, but isn't it actually original research to say which are frequent and which are rare? Since there is no citation.
85.217.15.10 (
talk) 23:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is there a specific section on this topic? Why are American economist singled out? This has the appearance of being part of a juvenile internet forum trans-Atlantic spat about who's currency is better. Is there solid academic backing for singling out American economists vs. any other economists in this period? Maybe there is, but it seems like an odd subsection in a general article on the euro. I would advocate a reformulation of the section to a more general discussion. -- Peregrine981 ( talk) 10:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that every member state issues Euro. How is it determined how much Euro can issue a country every year ? Srelu ( talk) 01:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This section reads like POV or original research. "Low levels of inflation are the hallmark of stable and modern economies." says who? Does it imply that there will be no inflation in the future? Are there such documented tendencies? "Because a high level of inflation acts as a tax ... it is generally viewed as undesirable." Very few would argue, common knowledge, should this really be mentioned in Wiki-article? It's like saying "Because diseases decrease the quality of life they are generally viewed as undesirable." Statement that Euro Bank's task is to maintain low inflation implies that other banks don't care or it's known how to keep inflation low. Are there such references?
I think this sections should be either rewritten or deleted. Yurivict ( talk) 04:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It's been discussed before, but I'd like to add a new source [10] that says: "Without a dramatic change of heart by the ECB and by European leaders, the single currency could break up within weeks". Now, we don't know the future, but in the present there are surely talks of a breakup. Tony ( talk) 17:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw this sentence in the article: "Moreover, private-sector indebtedness across the euro area is also markedly lower than in the highly leveraged Anglo-Saxon economies."
I do not think the term Anglo-Saxon in this context should be appearing anywhere in this article, firstly because it is ambiguous (do you mean the British? The Americans? Both?) and secondly because it is a weasel word, used in Europe and particularly France, in a somewhat derogatory way towards the British (who are, of course, correctly referred to as "The British", having ceased to be Anglo-Saxon circa 1066). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.65.31 ( talk) 16:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The 'Issuing modalities' section includes this text: "The other 92% of the euro banknotes are issued by the NCBs in proportion to their respective shares in the capital key of the ECB [43]". This is the first mention of "capital key". What's that? Thanks -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 02:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC) All I could find is this: http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/ecbhistoryrolefunctions2004en.pdf -- and it didn't help me. Jo3sampl ( talk) 02:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The Failure of the Euro; The Little Currency That Couldn’t by Martin Feldstein January/February 2012 Foreign Affairs 99.19.44.155 ( talk) 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
What wait help? The Netherlands didn't get downgraded yet did it? Joepnl ( talk) 01:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Standard & Poor's is affirming the 'AAA' long-term and 'A-1+' short-term unsolicited sovereign credit ratings on The Netherlands.
I've proposed that EUR, Rome be moved to EUR, you can comment on the proposed move here. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the legend to the graph in the section entitled "European sovereign debt crisis" is "Budget deficit of the euro area compared to USA and total OECD." The graph seems to show the euro area compared with the USA and the UK. Am I missing something, or should the legend be altered? Ondewelle ( talk) 09:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
that really should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 ( talk) 16:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Under the section 'trade', only the trade inside the eurozone is mentioned. Shall we also explain how the Euro has impacted on export from the Euro zone? Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 10:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Under Macroeconomic stability, the second sentence claims that 'high level of inflation acts as a tax (seigniorage) ...
Following from its definition, it can only be called seigniorage if the government itself 'prints' this money, AND adds it to its own coffers. However, if inflation (high or low) is allowed to happen by allowing the amount of money in the general economy to increase, then this is not seigniorage, as long as the government does not pocket the extra money.
Nobody these days argues for governments, selfprinting their income. But allowing some inflation as a way to press down a too strong currency is a standard IMF prescription for stalling economies. The second option deserves objective attention, and not to be discarded as seigniorage.
Shall we throw out the word? Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 11:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
First a general compliment: The Euro-article is really good quality!
Regarding the three graphs in the section Exchange Rate: The choice of coins (Dollar, Yen and Swiss Franc) and the starting point obscure the enormous growth of the price of the euro since it replaced national coins.
The euro started to be the euro as defined in the first sentence of this article (..and is the official currency of ...) in early 2002. Before that, some of the main benefits of the euro (such as less transaction costs and absolute certainty of Euro-wide value of any coins) had not yet materialized. Should not the graphs then also start in 2002? Or should at least the three preceding years be in dots?
Second point is that the three chosen coins suggest something very different from the text next to it. The graphs suggest some gains here,(to the dollar) some losses there (to the Swiss Franc). But the text (in slightly unclear terms) confirms that the Euro, as seen from most of our main trading partners, became much more expensive since its introduction in 2002. Japan is the only significant exception, and Switzerland is not a main trading partner. Their extremely strong currency is an odd exception, caused by the particularities of their economy (and, some would argue, tax and risk evasion in the rest of the world). So both of the currently used graphs (Yen and SWF) are highly unrepresentative for the price, our main trading partners have to pay for a Euro. UK is a much bigger trading partner, and its coin has done completely the opposite. Shall we instead put the graphs of Europe's three biggest trading partners? Or is there a graph of the value of the Euro, expressed as a weighted averige of the coin of our main trading partners? (The text suggests it exists, and that would neatly illustrate the text) Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 10:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
worth linking to? http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/12/euro-cent-money-shot.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandisk26 ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I added some lines on the cost, especially for endebted countries, resulting from high macroeconomic stability. I think its generally accepted economic reasoning, it was missing, making the argument one-sided, and I hope everyone accepts. Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 10:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- VERY BADLY WRITTEN, Needs be to rewritten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.24.169 ( talk) 17:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess the article should cover this eventuality and the potential repercussions. Thoughts? Malick78 ( talk) 20:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
There isn't going to be any break-up. That was pure wishful thinking by Americans and English outside the euro sphere of influence. On the other hand, the euro is expanding again. Latvia will be euroised in 2014 and Lithuania in 2015.
68.105.199.216 (
talk) 13:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This. That was only raised in the anglo media. Confusing wishes with reality does not make an encyclopedia article.
-- 83.56.229.98 ( talk) 11:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
"As of September 2012, with more than €915 billion in circulation, the euro has the highest combined value of banknotes and coins in circulation in the world, having surpassed the US dollar."
is billion here 10^9 or 10^12 ? the cited source (ECB publication) also uses the word "billion", without more specification at: https://stats.ecb.europa.eu/stats/download/bkn_notes_val/bkn_notes_val/bkn_notes_val.pdf
Can the explicit number (without verb ambiguity) be found somewhere on the ECB website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.88.146 ( talk) 10:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Today 1€=1.306$.Can't you set the cross of the 356 a.C. to be closer to reality?)))) 151.40.72.141 ( talk) 19:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
No, this is an english article and everything that makes the euro or the EU look bad must be used.
-- 83.56.229.98 ( talk) 11:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Some information on French use of the word "centimes" was recently added to the section Linguistic issues. The section specifically uses the {{ Main}} template to link the sub-article Linguistic issues concerning the euro, which describes usage in 50 different languages. Where such a sub-article is provided, the invoking section should use WP:Summary style and not go into details. The details in question are already in the sub-article.It would not be appropriate to have details of all 50 languages, especially since the linguistic aspects are not a major issue in the top-level article on the euro. Is there a good reason to make an exception for French? -- Boson ( talk) 08:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The graphs in Exchange Rate section seem a little misleading as the period from 1999-2002 charts the value of the European Currency Unit and not the Euro. I know that's sorta a technicality, but I think the way the ECU was valued was significantly different from how the Euro was valued. Including everything in the same chart seems a little misleading. NickCT ( talk) 14:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I find any mention that it was pretty well know in prior that euro-area is not optimum currency area. AFAIK it has been pretty established in literature before and after the adoption. Also, the Rose- branch of literature (anticipated increase in trade) seems to be missing. After all it was one of the core rationales in adopting Euro. Virtually all studies on Euro mention Rose literature. I might be adding something about both when I have time. ViperFace ( talk) 17:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
We are currently told in the lead that as of August 2014, there are more euros in circulation than any other currency. No source is given for this, but 'note 18' acts as an apparent source. This note is even worse, beginning 'As of April 2013', and then giving a whole series of figures from 2009. I neither know nor care enough to try to fix any of this, but somebody should, because its self-evident absurdity is very damaging to the credibility of the article. Tlhslobus ( talk) 12:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The categories for the countries where the Euro circulates is perfectly legitimate.
The Euro is even one of the currencies of Zimbabwe.
Yes,the Euro is a currency of the Commonwealth of Nations - as it circulates in both Cyprus and Malta. - ( 203.211.74.172 ( talk) 04:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Euro. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought the word euro (derived from a proper noun) would be capitalized. Kortoso ( talk) 18:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The infobox lists the names for the euro in those EU languages where the spelling is different from euro. These are: евро (Bulgarian), ευρώ (Greek), euró (Hungarian), eiro (Latvian), euras (Lithuanian), ewro (Maltese), and evro (Slovene); Hungarian euró wasn't there originally, but I've just added it to the group. Do you think евро and euró should stay, given that Bulgaria and Hungary don't yet use the euro as their currency? Notice that the Bulgarian Cyrillic name ЕВРО (uppercase) is featured on the newer series of euro banknotes, while the Hungarian name, like the other Latin-script names different form euro, is not. -- Theurgist ( talk) 23:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
A currency (coins and notes) is a tangible asset. How can the Euro article be classified as a "good article" when there is no section whatsoever about where the currencies and/or notes are manufactured?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.3.136 ( talk) 18:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Ireland has a mint that is used to manufacture some of the monies, particularly 5 euro notes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.240.177 ( talk) 00:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Euro. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Please do not forget the special gebitte at moneytraray accmen this to write down. (Without their own euro coins) French Guiana Guadeloupen Martinique mayotte Saint-Barthélemy Saint-pierre and Miquelon reunion Madeira Canaries Azores
"Passive" Euro users: (Without their own euro coins)
Kosovo Montenegro
Euro as by currency:
Lichtenstein Seychelles Zimbabwe Northern Ireland Gribralta On the border with Poland and Denmark
Euro except:
Aland Islands Büssingen at home listening Helgoland Capione di Italio Melila Ceuta
but I live in Germany and am a Euro expert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.193.84 ( talk) 06:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Euro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The article says nothing about 2014, but this was the worst year in Euro record. -- Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 13:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Euro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Euro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The article says there is no indication of what NCB issued the banknote. This could be true, depending on what we take the word "show" to mean. The serial numbers do "show" the NCB for the first series, but this is not exactly part of the banknote proper, since it is the part that varies on each note. - Estoy Aquí ( talk) 23:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Why does it imply these two are different? Greek is written in Cyrillic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.251.64 ( talk) 20:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I think this article would be more useful if it indicated HOW to display the euro symbol. I'd guess others, like me, look for that information (but don't find it).The euro symbol, Unicode codepoint U+20AC, can be rendered on a Windows PC using the alt+keypad process, if the application supports it. i.e. alt+127 (Holding down the left alt key on the keyboard, pressing 127 on the keypad, and releasing the alt key) will render (display on the monitor or output device) the symbol. Some Windows applications, e.g. Microsoft Word also support some fonts which allow the unicode decimal alt+8364 to be rendered as the euro symbol. Given the ubiquity of Windows, I think it's worthwhile to note this factoid. This type of short-cut isn't necessarily going to continue to work, so it should be qualified with the OS date, if included, I think. It might be that the two other major OS`s Linux (in its many versions) and Apple's macOS also provide such a short-cut, IDK. 98.21.219.152 ( talk) 23:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Over at Template talk:Infobox currency § Infobox Lists: long & trivial there is a discussion on the huge size of the lists in the infobox here: 110 lines! (And all unfolded when in mobile...). - DePiep ( talk) 16:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
sectionlink}}
for these lists?
DePiep (
talk) 20:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
local_name=
, I can't see how to do that without it looking a mess and just filling in the template for the sake of filling in the template. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 11:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Should we have a section explaining the rules for issuing new money, who gets it, what is the collateral (if any), when it happens, how often it happens, etc? It seems no currency article except for cryptocurrencies has this well explained and sorted out, which I miss because that is something that is very important encyclopedic knowledge of public interest. Lvella ( talk) 13:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Scheller
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).