Talk:Belarusian ruble/Archives/2017

This is an archive of past discussions about Belarusian ruble. 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.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merging pages because they are wholly redundant Reywas92^Talk 05:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I propose that New Belarusian ruble be merged into Belarusian ruble. There is already a good deal of overlap between the two articles, and standard practice on Wikipedia is to treat currencies that have been redenominated but not renamed under a single article. Jellyman (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree, it's same currency, and many countries did these things (new series, redenominations) and no reason to create seprate article for that. Rakoon (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

i agree too, per reasons mentioned above. Its another currency reform, not a new currency.--HC PUNXKID 23:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Support, no need for separate pages. Reywas92^Talk 06:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree. It is a new currency, not a new series of banknotes, which is a big difference. It has a different ISO 4217 code. Though it is a practice on Wikipedia to discuss redenominated currencies in the same article, it is not necessary a good practice. It does not really matter if the name of a currency is changed or not when it is replaced with a new one for whatever reason. See e.g. Template:Historical currencies of Brazil where they changed and reused names. Compare this to the Yugoslav dinar where they kept the same name but the situation was pretty similar. Timur lenk (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, because it's general practice. See the table at Redenomination#List_of_currency_redenominations Karl (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Onuralp Ateş and User:JerrySa1 who recognized that this did in fact represent a majority to merge; the last comment being five months ago implies the discussion is no longer, in fact, ongoing. I have found no evidence that there is such thing as a "New Belarusian ruble", as the official source ([1], Google translated) simply calls it a redenomination, still as the Belarusian ruble, and the Belarusian Wikipedia also describes them in the same article. This is still the same currency, regardless of the new ISO code. Compare to the Turkish lira, which was redenominated in 2005 and was in fact called the new lira (for a limited time) and also received a new ISO code, yet there is only one article. The various versions of the Yugoslav dinar have a single article on all of them. Regardless, there is no reason to have multiple article with the same duplicated content: Monetary reform in Belarus, 2016 shall be merged as well. Reywas92^Talk 07:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You called? I have no idea what's going on, but I'm thinking we should merge both articles. JerrySa1 (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

They were merged, but User:GPHemsley who I meant to ping before undid it saying "Undo redirect, which was made without resolution of the ongoing discussion." Do I need to make a formal close? Reywas92^Talk 21:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

An anonymous user replaced the page with a redirect without making any mention of the discussion or whether it had reached a conclusion. The aforementioned other users simply adjusted what page the redirect pointed to. Regardless of whether the discussion died down, no formal conclusion was reached. (Remember: Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus is not a simple up-or-down vote.) A redenomination of a currency is indeed the introduction of a new currency, regardless of whether the official name changes; this is indicated by the introduction of a new ISO 4217 code. I am personally of the opinion that we should have a separate article, or at least a separate infobox, for each such currency, and I plan to eventually make a proposal to that effect to WikiProject Numismatics. (Compare Bolivian boliviano vs. Bolivian boliviano (1864–1963); Peruvian sol vs. Peruvian sol (1863–1985).) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 07:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Both of those are poor examples as the two bolivianos had the peso between them and the two sols had the inti (and nuevo sol) between them. Yes, redenominations receive a new ISO code, but that is more of a technicality for standardization and here the government is not distinguishing it as a new currency altogether. User:Karl Palmen's link gives Zambian kwacha and several others that cover multiple codes for a single currency's versions in an article. It is a disservice to readers to spread content across multiple articles rather than have all the relevant information in one place, and the current article contains the information perfectly well. I would be happy to see a new infobox though; that would provide a delineation between versions without sacrificing readability and continuity, though perhaps it could be reorganized by version rather than coin/banknotes. For a poorly-trafficked article especially, the previous users should not be faulted for not closing a 5-1 discussion themselves; what difference does it really make here had they "formally" put the closing template on? Cheers, Reywas92^Talk 01:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belarusian ruble. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)