Test

Talk:Euro

Loading...
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleEuro is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleEuro has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
February 23, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
March 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 24, 2011Good article nomineeListed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 1, 2007.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

EUR - proposed move[edit]

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)

section on potential break-up?[edit]

I guess the article should cover this eventuality and the potential repercussions. Thoughts? Malick78 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If reliable and quality sources discuss a possible breakup, it can of course be mentioned in the article, though imo a whole section devoted to this scenario would give undue weight to it. A breakup is only one of the many potential outcomes that are currently being considered or discussed by politicians or in the media. Morgengave (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Clearly it is reasonable to mention that a break-up of the euro is being discussed and that it is a possible outcome of the current situation. If reliable sources can be cited, then it would also be reasonable to discuss (some of) the possible results of such an eventuality. However, I'd say that it should be emphasised that no one really knows what the results would be; otherwise, the article risks becoming an opinion piece, and possibly a scare-mongering one at that. Ondewelle (talk) 09:34, 26 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)

Graph in the section entitled "European sovereign debt crisis"[edit]

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)

there is places in norway that accepts the euro[edit]

that really should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

added some lines on the cost of to much macroeconomic stability[edit]

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)

Trade to economies outside the Euro?[edit]

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)

Wrong usage of 'seigniorage'[edit]

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)

Graphs on exchange rate might give wrong impression?[edit]

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)

interesting image of 1 cent coin in New Scientist[edit]

worth linking to? http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/12/euro-cent-money-shot.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandisk26 (talkcontribs) 15:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The cited number of Euro's in circulation is expressed in terms of "billion". Long or short scale?[edit]

"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)

The EU Interinstitutional Style Guide states "Use billion to mean 1 000 million." It does add "To avoid ambiguity with former [my emphasis] usage, define this in an abbreviations list or at first mention (by putting 1 000 million in brackets)." --Boson (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
All English speaking countries now use short scale (billion = 1,000,000,000). The United States and the English speaking part of Canada have always used it. The United Kingdom used to use long scale (billion = 1,000,000,000,000) but have almost universally used short scale since the early 1970s when the British government officially adopted it. There's no longer any real ambiguity in English. Other languages have different terms for 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000. See Long and short scales. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Euro exchanges datas are dated a lot[edit]

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)

Currency manufacturing[edit]

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)

The information on where the notes are printed is rather detailed to have in this high-level article, which is written insummary style; the section "Coins and banknotes" refers to the main articles on those topics for details. The article on euro banknotes gives information on where the banknotes are printed. Although the euro is described as a currency, currency in this sense of the word (notes and coins) is, of course, only a small part of the amount of money held in euros.--Boson (talk) 21:52, 1 May 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)

French centimes[edit]

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)

Graphs in Euro#Exchange_rates chart value of the ECU[edit]

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 believe you're correct. I recall reading a paper on economics which qualified the difference in the revision, but I can't remember where or when. It's probably worth a little research. In the meantime, do you think it best to hide the charts as being potentially WP:OR? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: - I think that would be reasonable. Or just remake the charts showing 2002 as the start of the x-axis. NickCT (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I was WP:BOLD and made the change. It's fine if anyone wants to switch it back. Just please justify why the European Currency Unit should be included in the graph. NickCT (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm certainly not going to revert it. I'd consider that, at this stage, the burden of proof in on anyone wishing to reintroduce the charts with RS demonstrating that the two units are equivalent (as well as the other POV pushes\OFFTOPIC content you've spotted and removed). Cheers for the good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Optimum currency area[edit]

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)

"Rose literature"? I suspect that you haven't found the English WP:COMMONNAME for what I'd suggest would be an economic term. Google yields this; Google scholar yields this; Google books yields this. Would you be talking about the rose effect per this publication? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Rose effect it is. By Rose literature I was just pointing at the whole pre-euro "effects of common currency on trade"- literature as Baldwin calls it. Rose published series of pre-euro papers finding common currency to increase trade something like 200-300% (!!) between the currency area countries. I recall seeing these results cited in policy-makers papers, so I think the increase in trade was expected to be quite much larger than the current consensus suggests. ViperFace (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I feel that it is probably WP:OFFTOPIC for development in this particular article. As an alternative route to addressing the issue here, it may be of greater relevance to the history and implementation of the Euro, therefore could be wikilinked to an article surrounding the economic theory behind the Euro? From my limited knowledge of this field, I'm not aware of there being a Wikipedia article addressing the economic theory at this level. Apologies, but I haven't looked into the archives here in order to establish whether it's been discussed at a prior date. Any input from regular Wikipedians who have been involved in this specific field over the years would be appreciated. If not, there certainly appears to be an opening in 'economics'/'econometrics' for this area to be better developed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Date conflicts in lead[edit]

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)

Thank you for your observation, Tlhslobus. Under the circumstances, I have to agree that this article is problematic and needs to properly updated. Based on this, I'm going to tag it as being out of date in relation to the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Country categories.[edit]

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))

Suggestion: Instead of IP hopping, create an account. Secondly, this is WP:TALK page, not a forum or blog for general discussion. Please state your case - being the content you are trying to add, along with reliable sources to back your contentions up - instead of leaving general personal opinions. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cyberbot II. The archived version found is confirmed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization[edit]

I would have thought the word euro (derived from a proper noun) would be capitalized. Kortoso (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It is an invented word that is not derived from a proper noun in the sense that the word derived is used for words like European, Christian, etc. The EU style guides, ECB usage etc. are clear about lowercasing it in the same way as other currencies. More like a cardigan or a sandwich. --Boson (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Names in other languages, particularly Bulgarian and Hungarian[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No working archives for any of these. Replaced with active urls x 2 + added 'cbignore' x 1. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

this contry class also includes moreover[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

2014.[edit]

The article says nothing about 2014, but this was the worst year in Euro record. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 13:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Says who? based on what? That is a very ambiguous statement that doesn't add much of value. The article has the following section, Euro#Eurozone_crisis, which deals with the crisis in general. TDL (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Dubious[edit]

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)