Talk:Croatian kuna/Archives/2012

ratio

The value of the first kuna in lire and Reichsmark is useful but oughtn't the succession box show the ratio to the Yugoslav dinar?
Dove1950 21:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My source (Global Financial Data) only listed the German and Italian rates. I assume this is because it was a puppet state, relatively unrelated to the previous Yugoslavia, and closely associated with Germany and Italy. If you have access to the conversion rate though, please add it. Ingrid 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

name controversy

Someone re-edited the name controversy section in Croatian government POV. Re-worded it again. Most Croatian citizens who considered themselves anti-fascists had big reservations about the name. The historical facts the government used were little known and sounded like a very thin excuse to most who kept a clear head about nationalism - which, during the war, was admittedly difficult to do. Miranche 00:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

NDH kuna

IMHO the kuna/banica details don't belong in the article about the modern-day kuna/lipa currency, because it is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Undue weight. Shall we move it to e.g. Croatian kuna (Independent State of Croatia)? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed. It's just that there really isn't a precedent for naming currency articles with bracketed qualifiers. For example, there have been four Polish złoty currencies, and no less than eight (!) Yugoslav dinars, and they're all grouped together into single articles. Perhaps Independent State of Croatia kuna would be a more streamlined title? Also, such a movement should probably also include a similar splitting of the Slovak koruna into two articles for consistency.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It would make sense to me to have the same article describe two currencies if there is continuity, i.e. they are consecutive, and there's a known exchange rate. If there are gaps in the history that break continuity, the parts can be split into different articles. In the listed examples, there do exist some gaps - Polish złoty: 1850-1924, Yugoslav dinar: 1941-1944, Croatian kuna: 1945-1994, Slovak koruna: 1945-1993.

I believe this would be consistent with the general policy - if topics have no actual concrete link other than their name, they are meant for Wikipedia:Disambiguation. They could be a target for Wikipedia:Merging, for which the criteria are: duplication, overlap, lack of text, context. The first two requirements are not met in case of these gaps. I haven't seen a lack of text in any of the listed cases. Only context is a contentious issue - in case of kuna it goes one way (not splitting off the older one gives it undue weight), and in case of zloty it goes the other way (splitting off the oldest one might give it undue weight). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Serbian Krajina dinar at the bottom-of-the-article box

Must be deleted as it does not belong (and never has) to a official currency of Croatia. On the other hand, this currency was not merged with kuna and no one could convert this dinar to kuna. Serbian Krajina was not a state, didn't enjoy recognision of any state in the world.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have amended the succession box. One could argue that there was technically succession, but in this case it was a competing issue (well, two sets of authorities were competing for the same territory at least), there was no exchange rate, and the other issue was mostly unrecognized worldwide, so I'm going to lean on the side that including it in the succession box is giving it undue weight. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Latin

While it may be in latin it is actually the scientific name for the species. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What the heck?

Every day wikipedia is disappointing me even more. Yet another article if full of POV. I am wrong or someone is trying to portrait Croatia as modern state who still uses fascist symbols? Nobody cares about frustration and complexes of the Serbian ultra nationalist. This article is supposed to be about Croatian currency, not Greater-Serbian wet dream. I am editing this, though I don't know why I bother anymore, because (probably) it will be edited back in the matter of seconds... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.110.56 (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing the unsourced controversy paragraph is fine per Wikipedia:Verifiability. If we can't reliably attribute those statements to anyone, it might be giving the issue undue weight.

However, I saw no reason to remove references to the illegitimacy of NDH or the more current reference to the parallel Krajina dinar. Those two are true and pertinent, please don't censor apparently valid information whose mention isn't really controversial per se. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Denomination "2 kuna, 2 kune, 5 kuna"

I change the denomination from "2 kuna" to "2 kune" : this is what you can read on a coin. I don't know why the denomination is "2 kune" while exists a "5 kuna" coin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.122.135 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 September 2010

That's because of the Croatian language practice of having a dual grammatical number. The singular of kuna is (jedna) kuna, the dual is (dvije) kune, three is (tri) kune (but no single coin), four is (četiri) kune (ditto), five is (pet) kuna, and onwards the plural is kuna, except when the number ends in 2, 3 or 4. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on this article

This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note:

• The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use.
• Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible.
• If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#Usage of non-free_images ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So people have already complained about how this mass removal is inappropriate, and yet you continue without centralized discussion, and threaten to report and block when confronted... nice. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in the policy does it actually say a table of banknotes must not contain images, rather it's an extrapolation of various policies and essays that produces your decision to remove. Yes, it's possible to convey a lot of information about how banknotes look like without actually showing them, but what's the point? There is no realistic issue of copyright infringement here - the relevant authorities simply don't want people to produce their own copies of physical notes so as to profit from them, but informing the general public of the proper look of the legitimate notes is in the best interest of everyone, both the author (copyright holder) and our readers. I fail to see how banknote pictures aren't treated as a perfect example of fair use as such - there is no practical alternative to using the non-free pictures. If the article was including more than one picture of each note, then that would be excessive and subject to removal per WP:NFCC #3a, but it isn't, there's exactly one image per item. I suppose one could argue that the pairs of files could be merged, but that's a purely technical issue, not anything resembling a copyright violation. OTOH one could argue that the image of the obsolete note is needless per policy, I guess. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's stance on non-free content (Note I am not using the term fair use) is far stricter than what is allowed by the law (fair use). We have a minimal usage policy, along with other criteria, and a far stricter limitation of how non-free content can be used. Take a look at WP:NFTABLE which is a guideline for WP:NFCC it states The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable I see nothing special about this page that would make this usage of non-free content in tables acceptable. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Plain, low-resolution banknote pictures are as such minimal. The Foundation Resolution says it's possible to use fair-use images to "complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". This is very narrow - only the small, finite set of current banknotes needs to be depicted to complement the article. If we had various random pictures of these banknotes, then that would be outside narrow limits. This is not. Being in a table is a technicality here; even if we used a list format, nothing substantial changes in the evaluation of non-freeness of this content. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• This article is currently using 18 non-free images. This places it in the top 20 on the entire project for the use of non-free images. This is not minimal use. 3,663,834 articles on this project use less non-free content. This places it in an extreme, extreme minority. Extreme use requires extreme justification. Every single one of the non-free images has a purpose of use of illustrating this article. That is a very weak purpose in the rationale. None of the banknotes' appearance features are discussed in the article with any sourced discussion. How is there a "need" to include every image of every side of the paper currency in order for this article to be encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not a guidebook. It would be appropriate to include every image if this were a guidebook on the Croatian economy, or similar. But, we are not. We are an encyclopedia. You would not expect to find all these images in a dictionary definition of the modern Croatian Kuna. Neither should we expect to find every image here, on an encyclopedia. Instead of the table presentation, consider restricting non-free use to key currency items whose visual appearance, security measures, or other visual aspect is discussed by secondary sources. Failing that, include an image of the most common base paper currency unit (5 Kuna?), and leave it at that. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The number 18 is really arbitrary here, they could all be merged into a single non-free image and the situation would effectively be the same as with any other article that includes e.g. a fair use logo. In fact, if we had a non-free image focusing on particular visual aspects of banknotes, that might risk invalidating that image's claim to fair use in the first place - because the amount of detail might be too substantial.

In any case, this removal was just one of many, and the centralized discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Did_recent_currency_image_deletions_go_beyond_the_proper_aims_and_objectives_of_the_NFC_image_policy.3F. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Introduction year

So the year of introduction is 1994 as the article stands. I have in my hand a Croatian 1993 1 lipa. Can someone explain this. 90.193.233.49 (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The kuna was introduced as means of payment in May 1994, but all the coins released into circulation were minted as early as 1993, in preparation of the switch from the Croatian dinar. Timbouctou (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)