Template talk:Euro topics

The following discussion was copied from Template talk:EU coins menu, which now redirects here.

The following discussion was copied from Template talk:EU coins menu, which now redirects here.

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)

I agree, and propose we remove the Eurocoins template. The menu template is less ugly. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about "ugly", but I would be inclined to agree, as I certainly would say the right-column format seems less intrusive, and more readily accessible. 24.17.48.241 04:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant "ugly" as in "messy as far as layout and design are concerned". 't seems we agree on this, then? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Image

As the template is growing more and more I propose excluding the image from this template. --Dima1 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No any comments? --Dima1 (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I personaly still like it, but I have high resolution displays, so it shows perfect for me. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Template is very big to have images inside. I insist on removing it. Any arguments? --Dima1 (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dima, we have talked about this, why you want it removed? It does look nice on my computer. What resolution do you have? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:18, 14 July 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)

Do you agree that template is rather big? I understand that this picture is very beautiful, but we have to take into consideration readability and size of the articles. If you don't agree we can vote on it. --Dima1 (talk) 19:22, 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)

Guys, let me go back to my original question: what resolution are you using? I use at home 1200x1024 and at work 1600x1200 and the image looks great in the template on both computers. If you have smaller resolution (which is not normal now a days but still possible) you may think that you need to enlarge the image or that the template is huge, but I honestly believe this is not the case. And even after I reduce my resolution, removing the image does not help to improve the template, as Theeuro mentioned. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:35, 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)

Note on Sweden, UK Denmark

I'd like to include a small note at the bottom of the template on the Non-Euro EU members.

Note: EU members Denmark, Sweden and the UK currently maintain their national currencies.

Any objections?Seabhcán 12:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Support, if you use UK instead. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 13:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and added a (slightly modified) note. —Nightstallion (?) 02:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Montenegro and Kosovo

In Montenegro, an independent country, euro € is used, and Kosovo, from Serbia

Indeed, but as neither Kosovo nor Montenegro will be able to mint their own coins until they join the Union and then the eurozone, it's irrelevant for now. —Nightstallion (?) 17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So I can't stop wondering, what kind (in terms of national) of coins do they use? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Before the euro, the Balkans mostly relied on the German mark, but I don't think that would make the likelihood of encountering German euro coins any higher... —Nightstallion (?) 22:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If the coins don't exist, why have an article about them [1] - there was not a Kosovan mark coins article. --Rumping (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Template position

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)

Mh. I prefer it the way it currently is, since it's rather the "related articles" type of template (confer {{Politics of Slovenia}}) than the "see also" type of template (confer {{NATO}}). What did you have in mind? —Nightstallion (?) 12:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But how do you address the problem of spacing? These articles have huge space to accommodated roughly 60% of the internet users. I'm sorry to say this, but the result is ugly for 100% of the users, regardless of screen resolution. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Could you show me what kind of change you had in mind? I'm not against changing it out of principle, but I'd like to see first whether we can keep its visual pleasantness. Despite its problems, I really like the way the template currently looks... —Nightstallion (?) 17:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Chochopk/Template sandbox 1. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Three requests:

• Make it "pre-euro" instead of "pre euro".
• Keep the distinction between the new member states which will adopt it earlier or later and Andorra/Denmark/Sweden/UK.
• Keep the short text at the bottom on the situation in Denmark/Sweden/UK.

Apart from that, I think I'm sold. :) —Nightstallion (?) 13:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, when will you make the change? —Nightstallion (?) 09:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please allow some time. Very busy at wiki and in real life. I aim to have a complete draft for you to review by the end of this weekend. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to bother or annoy you. Great work! —Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied talk content ends here.

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

Contrary to the previous comment, I find the new template pretty useful, lot more than the earlier. It contains all relevant topics related to the euro as a currency. Although Britain is not a member of the monetary union, it is supposed to be, and th efar future aim for all EU members is to join the euro anyways. Timur lenk 20:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. —Nightstallion (?) 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly against splitting, but allow me to explain the motive behind this template. I created this template as a replacement for Template:EU coins menu and Template:PreEuroCurrencies. The vertical EU coins menu was causing problem for users with smaller screen, so a horizontal format is better. And then I realize there was no euro topic nav box for things like eurozone and currencies related to the euro and the result was a whole bunch of links in the see also section. And often times, if a user is interested in Cyprus and its relationship with the euro, he/she probably wants to read/edit currencies related to the euro, European Exchange Rate Mechanism, Cypriot pound, Cypriot euro coins. I see that the target dates of joining the euro for the new EU members are updated frequently. Having these article links helps consistency.

By the way, just to be clear, Nightstallion is disagreeing with Hammersfan, not with Timur lenk. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please make the template collapsed. --Dima1 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No any comments? --Dima1 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as well, why do you want it collapsable? Also, it looks easier to the eye of us editors if you ask those questions at the end of the talk section, I missed your previous question almost two months ago about this topic; just a suggestion Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oct07 redesign

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)

Aye! —Nightstallion 22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - S. Solberg J. 16:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ECU • ERM • EMU

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 agree with Rumping on this issue. Using the actual abbreviations seems more informative. In addition to Rumping's original point, I might add that a researcher might not think to mouseover I • II • III to find the underlying topics. Perhaps a happy compromise might be in order for this template. I propose using ECU(I) • ERM(II) • EMU(III) in the template, if Ssolbergj is still very adamant about expressing the three step process. --Theeuro (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried it that way and it looks confusing. So it is back with the abbr. --Theeuro (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My argument is that they were step 1, 2 and 3 of the EU's single currency plan (the European Monetary System). The chronological steps justify their place under 'history'. If they're just some abbreviations, mentioning EMU (the last step which still is active and therefore is under 'topics' as well) twice would be redundant for example. "ECU", "ERM" and "EMU" are three confusing abbreviations. Numbers and chronology are easier to understand. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 13:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But then since the Exchange Rate Mechanism is still active it too should be a topic and the European Currency Unit should be spelt out as a former currency. I II III is just unhelpful. --Rumping (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes the ERM is still active in some countries, but ERM is and was a tool on the path towards the single currency. May I suggest you read the EMS European Monetary System article? The numbers make perfect sense. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 23:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree about what the history was or the present actually is, just the best presentation. --Rumping 18:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That the history and/or present situation of these three composites of the Euro is not in dispute. Rumping makes a very good point when he says '...best presentation'. Having ECU • ERM • EMU instead of I • II • III speaks more to the researchers' ability to get to the relevant article. Should we have a vote? - The € • ^T/_C 05:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No it's not about presentation; the point is that if they aren't numbers, (or pointed out as chronological steps in this template) the sense disappears. To divide the EMS into three numbered steps is an established practice, I didn't make it up. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 00:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think both arguments are valid. Why don't we simply use both? —Nightstallion 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I had in mind. :) —Nightstallion 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks so much better. Way to compromise, S. Solberg J.!
-The € • ^T/_C 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Target countries

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)

No one has comment and I think that this information (the target year) is so missleading, I will remove it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would keep the Slovakian one since it is known--Melitikus (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

SEPA

SEPA is not mentioned anywhere on this template. Shouldn't it be there somewhere? (Stefan2 (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

Euro convergence criteria

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)

Kosovo and Montenegro redux

"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)

Swiss franc and Switzerland

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)

Kosovo uses the euro as the actual unit of currency. The acceptance of euros in areas of Switzerland is not a unique situation, it happens in many border areas around the world (like the UK for another euro example). Individual companies/people are at liberty to take whatever currency they want, this doesn't change that Switzerland's official currency is the franc. CMD (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Currencies pegged to the Euro?

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)

UK and euro

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)

While we could probably say it, the scope of the articles there would suggest changing the row title would be a better solution. Something like "Relationship with non-issuing countries" perhaps. CMD (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

We could said potential adoption of euro by UK when UK was part of EU. Now UK is not part of EU. Kosovo and Montenegro are also not part of EU but they are using euro. UK case is different from Kosovo and Montenegro. Someone who read the template maybe understand that these 3 countries may adopt euro (or already using it) even they are not part of EU. This is correct for Kosovo and Montenegro but is not correct for UK. Data Gamer (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is my suggestion [3] Data Gamer (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of non-EU countries use the Euro. Some even issue them. The suggestion is perfectly workable, mine was just in the hope of avoiding yet more rows on this already long template. CMD (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican are the only non-EU countries that using Euro. But they have a monetary agreement. That why they are allowed to issue coigs. Their case is different from Kosovo and Montenegro. Data Gamer (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)