Talk:Ghanaian cedi/Archives/2017

This is an archive of past discussions about Ghanaian cedi. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ghanaian cedi. 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) 09:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge of Ghanaian Pound article into Ghana Cedi article

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.

No merge as proposal is stale and opinion was mixed, including arguments against based on precedents set by other currencies. Klbrain (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Since the Ghanaian Pound simply was the very first currency of independent Ghana, the proto Cedi on might say wouldn't it be a good idea simply to have all four historical currencies of the Republic of Ghana in the same article? Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There's no real reason for the separate pound page. VirusKA (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds logical. --Varavour (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 13:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense, I agree.—Sadat (Masssly)❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 18:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, two different currency names. Might as well put Australian pound with Australian Dollar. It would be too confusing. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Once the Ghanaian pound (1958-65) banknotes are already on display on Ghana Cedi, it seems plausible to merge and locate the Ghanaian pound stub (composed of just 4 lines) in that section. I understand Enlil Ninlil's concern, but it sounds to me unjustifiable. Krenakarore ^TK 22:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Australian pound was introduced to show that Australia as a British Dominion was developing its independence and it continued after the full Independence was achieved in 1942. Australia was a British settlement area and developed its relationship with Great Britain over long time. It is still has a British Monarch. The area today called Ghana was an independent area that trade with danish, dutch and english traders for century (Yes you guessed it, the slavetrade). The main part of the country did not formally become a english colony before 1901 (after the final defeat of the Ashanti Empire). Some Ghanaian Kingdoms and Federations consider the British colony time as a short-lived military occupation. I Have a friend whose Great-Great (something) father as the King of Krobo Ilyt use to throw British colonial officals off a cliff until 1898 when the english finaly got enough artillery upriver. Of course the tribes living at the coast have a different view in this matter. in 1960 88% of the population voted to depose the British Queen as Queen of Ghana.

It is important to understand this talking about the Ghanaian Pound. In contrast to the CFA Franc, witch originally was the french colony currency and then developed into what it is today, the Ghanaian Pound was made up to separate the new Ghana republic from the English colony currency, the British West African pound (not to be confused with the Ghanaian pound). The Ghanaian pound was very shortlived, excisted for only 7 years and it was directly followed by the Cedi.

Of course there is some value to Masslys point of view. I would have no problem following it, but then we should also make new articles for the Cedi and the New cedi as they just as different currencies as the Ghanaian pound in relation to the currency that names this article, namely the Ghana cedi. Comming to this article you might be confused that it does not only handle the Ghana cedi, but also the Cedi and the New cedi. In other words the article right now is already about 3 different currencies. It will take little effort to move the list of Ghanaian pounds on display here to the other article. But it will take more to make 3 good articles instead of 3 stubs about the now defunct currencies: Ghanaian pound, Cedi and New Cedi. Who will do the work researching and writting 3 full articles on this High Importance Project Ghana subject? Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Now you sound confusing to me. Will or would ? You wanna merge the Ghanaian pound into this one. Krenakarore ^TK 23:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I WOULD love four wellwritten GA articles on all four currencies, but I am realistic. I WILL merge the Ghanaian pound article into this article and make this article really good. To be honest I dont think there is enough references for four article or editor manpower. This is africa :) Actually many of the websites you will go to at a google search sounds word for word like this article before I started removing the worst mistakes. Most of such potential references forgets the 10 and 20 revolution notes. (just an example). So realistic: Lets make one good article about the Currencies of Independent Ghana and lets call it Ghana cedi because that is where most will start looking. So lets merge. And I am also a little annoyed that because they are all called something with cedi that people actually consider them to be the same currency :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It is just a historical thing, from one currency to the other. To make one good article instead of four stubs is common sense to me. I tend to read the history section before touching anything, so that means I've noticed you've been working on this article for some time, and I've gotta say you've been doing good. Merge that article into this one, once the information is here, not there. Thank you, Krenakarore ^TK 23:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Just wait until we get to the history section. I am finding some references, but it take time. There is quit a few mistakes right now and even more half truths. I dont know if i can succeed, but I hope the history section will one day tell the real story about how it is not simply from one currency to another. But I have to write from internet sources and not simply what I am told when I sit down with my Togbe. How not that many years ago washing powder was better than paper money. Or how the dreams of the grandfathers, or the cazy and dangerous fantasies some might say, never came to be. Or how close we actually was to crashing the whole country this july. But I cant write from what I know, I have to write from sources, so we shall see. Unfortunately I do have a live creeping up on me :). But believe me, the story about the money of Ghana is the story about Ghana. And like anywhere else in Westafrica you really have to be here to feel it. And I am just a white man in a black mans world. Always remember there is a logical explanation for everything, it just not your kind of logic. Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As I usually say, my preferences here are totally irrelevant. I believe you will succeed in telling the story of this currency though. Actually, I am sure. I'm gonna ask you a mathematical question now, although I myself am a lousy mathematician: You're working for the New York Times. Your boss is now appointing you the one in charge of the first page. How will you arrange the information on that page ? I showed you other ways to re-arrange the information on the article (the second picture was moved to the left for one reason: The first picture, in the infobox, is already on the right - WP:MOSIM). I will not touch the article, once you're now working on it. Krenakarore ^TK 00:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so, we can always get a friendly editing war going :). No seriousely, I don't own any article. I like the way of making the lists, making them the same size. I didn't like the big black parts it made around the pictures, but I think I solved that problem. Maybe you are right, on but on large screens a left picture in a small section will often make the next sections title look out of place. That is what happening on my screen. I really don't like the way the pictures in the coin section looks to. On my screen they are making a sandwich out of the text. I think I would prefer an old fashion paper layout that will not change with the size of the screen the viewer is having. Of course, the solution is simple. Just expand the historical version with the info on the historical inflation of the traditional cedi economics. Then a left picture will be good for all sizes screens. But I get your point, specially when you collapse the table of contents. Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I would love to help you out (:) but right now I'm a little bit late with something I've been doing offline for about a year. It is perfectly normal when a picture interferes with a heading, which appears mid-way to the center of the article. That helps to break the usual symmetry between left and right positions of the pictures in the article. In the beginning I didn't like that either, but as time progressed I was showed the advantage of this happening. The black margin around the banknotes was something that should be fixed. You did very well ! Sometimes textual parts in the article tend to be partly sandwiched, but as you said, the solution lies in the expansion of the text itself. Here, nothing remains the same, and if I don't touch the article, somebody else will. Believe me, what you see on your monitor, is what I see on mine. I'll be back when you expand things a bit and make them in a way the readers out there will easily understand. Best of luck, your friend Krenakarore ^TK 01:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I Agree Wsduho (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The established convention on Wikipedia is that if the currency unit name is different, it should be a different article, as evident as Malawian kwacha:Malawian pound, Rhodesian pound:Rhodesian dollar, Zambian pound:Zambian kwacha, Israeli lira:Israeli new shekel, the list can go very long. Length is not an issue. There are short-lived republics that are predecessor to the current ones and they have an article. The coin and banknote tables of the pound at Ghana cedi should be moved to Ghanaian pound and that actually solves the correctness problem and the worthiness of Ghanaian pound. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you want this article to be split into four articles? Because there is not two different names but four: Ghanaian Pound, Cedi, New Cedi and Ghana Cedi. And if so would it be a good idea to copy the background (the historical Cedi and Pesewas from the 14th to 19 century) into all four articles or should that be a fifth article? Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I Agree The article Ghanaian pound is quite brief and its merger with Ghana cedi will enrich that article with the historical background. If someone manages to expand information on the Ghanaian pound substantially, it can be recreated as a separate article.--Natsubee (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2015 (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.