Numismatics Template‑class | |||||||
|
European Union Template‑class | |||||||
|
This seems completely redundant with Template:Eurocoins--I really can't see why we need both, especially in the same articles-- Cypriot euro coins, etc.. 24.17.48.241 15:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
As the template is growing more and more I propose excluding the image from this template. -- Dima1 ( talk) 15:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Removing the image is not going to change the fact that the template is large. If anything, the image serves to provide overflow space so that the template is less cramped and easier to read. Should we have a vote? Cheers. The € • T/ C 23:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Dima1, it would be helpful if we could finish our discussion before unilateral action is taken on your part. Both Miguel.mateo and myself have concerns about executing the changes you are proposing. By my count, there are three outstanding questions in this discussion that require address before action is taken. Please show some restraint in this matter. Cheers. The € • T/ C 18:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
IMO the template looks better with the image, i think without it, it would look dull - however i suggest that the image should be elongated to touch both the top and bottom ends-- Melitikus ( talk) 19:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Melitikus and Theeuro. — Nightstallion 21:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I am using 1024x768, but the question is not about resolutions but about the template size. When removing image template becomes smaller. Should we use it anyway. And the second thing is if the image is so much connected with the template topic that you all want to leave it. How do you think? -- Dima1 ( talk) 10:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to include a small note at the bottom of the template on the Non-Euro EU members.
Any objections? Seabhcán 12:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I just went ahead and added a (slightly modified) note. — Nightstallion (?) 02:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
In Montenegro, an independent country, euro € is used, and Kosovo, from Serbia
I feel its better to leave Kosovo as 'Misc'. We should avoid disputed about the status of that place (independent nation vs serbian province). Thewikipedian ( talk) 12:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently, this template is located at the right of the screen. This has caused problems to users with 1024 pixel wide screen (or less) on denomination articles (1 cent ~ 2 euro). I suggest making this template horizontal and place at the bottom.
If I were to take one step further, I would make a "euro related topic" template, where things like "Eurozone", "Currencies related to the euro", "ERM" would all be in that box. We could also place "coins by country" and "coins by denomination" there too. -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 01:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Chochopk/Template sandbox 1. -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 10:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me, but this template is awful. It is far too big, and with far too many topics to be a proper navigational aid. The only relevant section of it to the title is the first, the general topics related to the Euro and Eurozone. There should be seperate navigational templates for the coins (which there was before people took it upon themselves to alter), and for the various other currencies. I for one object to the article about the pound sterling (not the "British Pound" as it is incorrectly labelled) being classed as a "Euro related topic". Hammersfan 15/02/07, 18.10 GMT
Please make the template collapsed. -- Dima1 ( talk) 21:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks fantastic! Clear, pleasing to the eye (great image btw) and stylish. I knew it was you SSJ, good work! - J Logan t: 09:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought ECU • ERM • EMU would be better spelt out [2] than left as I • II • III. People looking for these (e.g. me) find it difficult to find these topics if we have to rely on mouseovers. -- Rumping ( talk) 08:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think both arguments are valid. Why don't we simply use both? — Nightstallion 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This looks so much better. Way to compromise, S. Solberg J.!
-
The € •
T/
C 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if it is better to remove the years next to the target countries, since they change in the article too often, without any reason and almost all of them are based on real speculation (there is no official release date), unless it is as realistic as Slovakia (but I would remove 2009 as well). Any comments? Miguel.mateo ( talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I would keep the Slovakian one since it is known-- Melitikus ( talk) 10:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
SEPA is not mentioned anywhere on this template. Shouldn't it be there somewhere? ( Stefan2 ( talk) 07:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC))
The article Euro convergence criteria is related to the euro. Can it be added somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
"Proposed adoption by other countries" is a misleading category for Kosovo and Montenegro to sit in. Maybe they should fit under the "International status" heading as a sub-heading "Unilateral adoption by non-EU countries". Travelpleb ( talk) 14:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Something like this:
Travelpleb ( talk) 14:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Obviously Switzerland is not part of the EU, or the Euro-zone (though there are many bilateral agreements between the EU and Switzerland on economic issues). However, the euro is accepted in Swizerland in many places, especially in the border regions, probably mostly because Switzerland is surrounded by the euro-zone. As such, would it make sense to either add Switzerland to the "Potential adoption by other countries" section or better, to add a section for "Use by non-EU countries" and put places like Kosovo and Switzerland in that section. Thoughts? **** you, you ******* ****. ( talk) 08:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Should we also mention in this template the list of currencies pegged to the Euro: XAF, XOF, XPF, BAM, etc. 2601:602:9C01:6075:0:0:0:5BE1 ( talk) 14:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Now it is not correct to have United Kingdom ( United Kingdom and the euro) at the row "Potential adoption by other countries" in Non-EU. We may need another row for that article. We can't say now that UK may adopt euro. We could said that when UK was part of EU. Now, we can't say that. And of course is different case that Kosovo and Montenegro. Data Gamer ( talk) 17:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Numismatics Template‑class | |||||||
|
European Union Template‑class | |||||||
|
This seems completely redundant with Template:Eurocoins--I really can't see why we need both, especially in the same articles-- Cypriot euro coins, etc.. 24.17.48.241 15:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
As the template is growing more and more I propose excluding the image from this template. -- Dima1 ( talk) 15:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Removing the image is not going to change the fact that the template is large. If anything, the image serves to provide overflow space so that the template is less cramped and easier to read. Should we have a vote? Cheers. The € • T/ C 23:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Dima1, it would be helpful if we could finish our discussion before unilateral action is taken on your part. Both Miguel.mateo and myself have concerns about executing the changes you are proposing. By my count, there are three outstanding questions in this discussion that require address before action is taken. Please show some restraint in this matter. Cheers. The € • T/ C 18:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
IMO the template looks better with the image, i think without it, it would look dull - however i suggest that the image should be elongated to touch both the top and bottom ends-- Melitikus ( talk) 19:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Melitikus and Theeuro. — Nightstallion 21:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I am using 1024x768, but the question is not about resolutions but about the template size. When removing image template becomes smaller. Should we use it anyway. And the second thing is if the image is so much connected with the template topic that you all want to leave it. How do you think? -- Dima1 ( talk) 10:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to include a small note at the bottom of the template on the Non-Euro EU members.
Any objections? Seabhcán 12:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I just went ahead and added a (slightly modified) note. — Nightstallion (?) 02:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
In Montenegro, an independent country, euro € is used, and Kosovo, from Serbia
I feel its better to leave Kosovo as 'Misc'. We should avoid disputed about the status of that place (independent nation vs serbian province). Thewikipedian ( talk) 12:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently, this template is located at the right of the screen. This has caused problems to users with 1024 pixel wide screen (or less) on denomination articles (1 cent ~ 2 euro). I suggest making this template horizontal and place at the bottom.
If I were to take one step further, I would make a "euro related topic" template, where things like "Eurozone", "Currencies related to the euro", "ERM" would all be in that box. We could also place "coins by country" and "coins by denomination" there too. -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 01:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Chochopk/Template sandbox 1. -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 10:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me, but this template is awful. It is far too big, and with far too many topics to be a proper navigational aid. The only relevant section of it to the title is the first, the general topics related to the Euro and Eurozone. There should be seperate navigational templates for the coins (which there was before people took it upon themselves to alter), and for the various other currencies. I for one object to the article about the pound sterling (not the "British Pound" as it is incorrectly labelled) being classed as a "Euro related topic". Hammersfan 15/02/07, 18.10 GMT
Please make the template collapsed. -- Dima1 ( talk) 21:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks fantastic! Clear, pleasing to the eye (great image btw) and stylish. I knew it was you SSJ, good work! - J Logan t: 09:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought ECU • ERM • EMU would be better spelt out [2] than left as I • II • III. People looking for these (e.g. me) find it difficult to find these topics if we have to rely on mouseovers. -- Rumping ( talk) 08:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think both arguments are valid. Why don't we simply use both? — Nightstallion 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This looks so much better. Way to compromise, S. Solberg J.!
-
The € •
T/
C 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if it is better to remove the years next to the target countries, since they change in the article too often, without any reason and almost all of them are based on real speculation (there is no official release date), unless it is as realistic as Slovakia (but I would remove 2009 as well). Any comments? Miguel.mateo ( talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I would keep the Slovakian one since it is known-- Melitikus ( talk) 10:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
SEPA is not mentioned anywhere on this template. Shouldn't it be there somewhere? ( Stefan2 ( talk) 07:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC))
The article Euro convergence criteria is related to the euro. Can it be added somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
"Proposed adoption by other countries" is a misleading category for Kosovo and Montenegro to sit in. Maybe they should fit under the "International status" heading as a sub-heading "Unilateral adoption by non-EU countries". Travelpleb ( talk) 14:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Something like this:
Travelpleb ( talk) 14:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Obviously Switzerland is not part of the EU, or the Euro-zone (though there are many bilateral agreements between the EU and Switzerland on economic issues). However, the euro is accepted in Swizerland in many places, especially in the border regions, probably mostly because Switzerland is surrounded by the euro-zone. As such, would it make sense to either add Switzerland to the "Potential adoption by other countries" section or better, to add a section for "Use by non-EU countries" and put places like Kosovo and Switzerland in that section. Thoughts? **** you, you ******* ****. ( talk) 08:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Should we also mention in this template the list of currencies pegged to the Euro: XAF, XOF, XPF, BAM, etc. 2601:602:9C01:6075:0:0:0:5BE1 ( talk) 14:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Now it is not correct to have United Kingdom ( United Kingdom and the euro) at the row "Potential adoption by other countries" in Non-EU. We may need another row for that article. We can't say now that UK may adopt euro. We could said that when UK was part of EU. Now, we can't say that. And of course is different case that Kosovo and Montenegro. Data Gamer ( talk) 17:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)