Talk:Euro

	Euro 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.
	Euro 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 delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept February 23, 2006 Featured article review Demoted March 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Former featured article, current good article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.

WikiProject European Union      (Rated GA-Class) European Union portal This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Numismatics      (Rated GA-Class) Numismatics portal This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Top This article has been rated as top-Importance on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is a vital article.

	WikiProject Echo      (Multiple languages)
	WikiProject Echo has identified Euro as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German or Korean language Wikipedias.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

[edit] Euro Rates

this: "Against the U.S. dollar, the euro temporarily weakened in 2005, falling to $1.18 (€0.85/$) in July 2005..." does not fit with the chart that says that the lowest euro-dollar rate was in november 2005.

[edit] Cuba

I understand that Cuba is accepting Euros now. As yet I don't have a link for this.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Found this:- http://www.cubatravelusa.com/currency_cuba_Nov_2004.htm <<< Worth mentioning in the article? Objections?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to be confused, Cuba does not accept euros or any other foreign currencies in the main establishments in Havana or any other cities, only Cuban Convertible Pesos (currency code CUC) are allowed. There is only one beach resort (Varadero), that is frequently visit by European citizens. Only in this resort prices are shown in Cuban Convertible Pesos and euros. What the article you referenced means is that since December 2004, it is better NOT TO bring US dollars to Cuba, since there is an extra fee wehn converting them and your dollars will be devaluated almost 20% of the real value. I lived in Cuba for a long time and I still go there once every two years or so, I always bring with me either Japanese Yen or Canadian Dollars, just to avoid the extra conversion fee mentioned in the article. But I could not use them (not even euros), I would have to convert them first to Cuban Convertible Peso (now pegged to the USD at 1 CUC = 1.08 USD). I hope that clarifies the situation. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking for something else I found this [[1]] (in Spanish). They are accepting euros in Cuba not only in Varadero, but in a lot of other tourist spots. It is interesting that you can use them almost everywhere: hotels, rent a cars, shops, restaurants ... etc. I thought it may be of interest. Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this worth mentioning in the article then? An example of the Eurozone unofficially extending way beyond Europe's borders? Seems important?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Its more of a Cuba issue than a euro issue isn't it? Accepting foreign currencies at tourist hotspots is hardly big news (only for Cuba in the context of isolation - but as I say, that is a cuba issue). What would be news was if the locals were using it. And we do mention Cuba I think in terms of trading currency.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"What would be news was if the locals were using it" ... it is news then, in those tourist spots, locals and tourist can pay in euros. However, I do not think is clearly received/accepted among the locals. I do agree however, that this is not a euro issue. Miguel.mateo (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homer euro

should we add info about the homer simpson euro? 75.52.123.217 (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well do you have info about this "homer euro" ? -- CD 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Who needs info, from the name I think the answer is a clear and definate "no!"- J Logan ^t: 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Did a google, not as bad as I thought but it really isn't notable for this article. Maybe if we had a specific one on counter-fitting - or maybe if someone knows how it can be squeezed into the commemorative coins article! - J Logan ^t: 20:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This coin has no place on the euro commemorative coins article.Kevin hipwell (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was actually talking with sarcasm as I thought it was some kind of joke -- CD 10:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation ...

... I can add at least 10 more samples of the use of EURO to the top of the article. Shall I do that so everyone is clear that this should not take place? In the disambiguation page is clearly stated all the different uses of Euro, so why do we have to treat the UEFA cup differently? IMHO, only a link to the disambiguation place is accepted.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't include a stub if you want to get a point across. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, the fact you answered this post is enough for me. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant says the user who adds a white supremacy stub and compares it to one of the most widely watched sports tournaments in the world. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, irrelevant is that "the most widely watched sports tournaments in the world" needs to be referenced from the Euro article, just because some people call it like that; for that reason we have the disambiguation pages (BTW, I thought the "most watched ..." was the Beijing Olympics, but that is irrelevant too). Would you accept if I put a {{for}} tag in the top of the UEFA article pointing to this article? Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people calling it the Euro is an understatement. Also, you're misquoting me since I stated that it's one of the most widely watched, not the most widely watched. Adding a tag on the top of the UEFA article that directs a reader to this article is fine and vice versa. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, disambiguation is enough - there are loads of articles, people can just go to the disambiguation page for them, no need for a direct link.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Euros" and "cents" as non-legislative plurals

To stop the editing and reediting of this page what is the proper pural of euro and cent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.53.61 (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The official position is euro and cent, I think thought that needs to be written in the prose somewhere so we avoid this problems in the future, I will try to do that later. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

as far as i know, the rule is only for legislations and official documents issued by the goverments - irrespective of the language the term euro and cent should be used both in singular and plural. But in articles, TV, media .... euros and cents can be used - the local term can also be used e.g. in the maltese on the tv they wouldnt say euro and cent but ewro and centezmu/i --Melitikus (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The English-language natural plurals, i.e. the ones that are correct and commonly used, are "euros" and "cents". 87.175.20.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The situation has changed somewhat since 2004

• The spelling of the nominative singular is still clear.
• So is the non-capitalization.
• The singular form of the plural on banknotes would also appear to be a matter of fact.

It has been clear for some time that in normal writing the plural with 's' is usual and preferred by the English public and by the European Commission.

It now also seems to be clear that there is no longer any insistence on the singular form for the plural in official documents such as legislation. I cannot even find any recommendation for this after 2006.

The current position of the ECB, as far as I can establish, is defined in Opinion CON/2005/51 and is that specifically the nominative singular [my emphasis] is "euro"/"cent". Following problems with Lithuania etc., the ECB apparently now avoid any pronouncement on the declension in the different languages.

Reference: European Central Bank (2005-12-13). "Opinion of the European Central Bank of 1 December 2005 on a proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 on the introduction of the euro (CON/2005/51)" (pdf). Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved on 2008-09-07. "For reasons of legal certainty, the ECB recommends that the text of the proposed regulation incorporates in its normative part a provision confirming that ‘the spelling of the name of the euro shall be identical in the nominative singular case in all the official languages of the European Union, taking into account the existence of different alphabets."

There are two relevant EU style guides: the Interinstitutional style guide and the Translation Directorate style guide. Both seem to agree on the spelling "euro" and on non-capitalization. They also now seem to agree on the use of the plural form "euros", though that is less clear.

The style guide of the European Commission Directorate-General for Translation currently says:

20.8 The euro. Like ‘pound’, ‘dollar’ or any other currency name in English, the word ‘euro’ is written in lower case with no initial capital and, where appropriate, takes the plural ‘s’ (as does ‘cent’):This book costs ten euros and fifty cents[my emphasis]. However, in documents and tables where monetary amounts figure largely,make maximum use of the € symbol (closed up to the figure) or the abbreviation EUR before the amount. (May 2008) English Style Guide: A handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission (pdf), Fifth edition (revised), European Commission Directorate-General for Translation. Retrieved on 2008-08-04. 

The Interinstitutional style guide, (7.3.3. Rules for expressing monetary units http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370303.htm ) currently has a caveat: The text in point 7.3.3 is in draft form and is currently being analysed by the institutions. When it has been finalised you will be notified on the News page of this website. but has the following note (using "euros" in the plural):

When a monetary unit is referred to generally but an amount is not included, it is written in letters, except in tables (see ‘When to use the ISO code (EUR)’):

an amount in euros[my emphasis]

a sum in pounds sterling

As I understand it, both the Translation style guide and the Interinstitutional style guide had different texts prior to 2006, as quoted in ECB Legal Working Paper Series No. 2 / February/March 2006 The Application of Multilingualism in the European Union Context

Old text (February 2006):

Footnote 111

Translation style guide (20.7) "Guidelines on the use of the euro, issued via the Secretariat-General, state that the plurals of both ‘euro’ and ‘cent’ are to be written without ‘s’ in English. Do this when amending or referring to legal texts that themselves observe this rule. However, in all other texts, especially documents intended for the general public, use the natural plurals ‘euros’ and ‘cents’ "

Interinstitutional style guide (7.3.1): "In English, the terms euro and cent are invariable (no plural 's'), notwithstanding the acknowledgement in a footnote that ‘The spellingwithout an “s” may be seen as departing from usual English practice for currencies’. Notwithstanding that in Italian, German and Greek the words ‘euro’ and ‘cent’ are also used in their plural-less form, in most other languages, including French and Spanish, the name of the single currency tends to vary in the plural, both inofficial and in everyday use."

The note in the Interinstitutional style guide suggests that the matter is under discussion.

See also Linguistic issues concerning the euro, which may also need reviewing.

--Boson (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: It looks to me as if some of the confusion may have been caused by the ECB previously talking about a single (i.e. common) spelling for a single (i.e. common) currency. In the above Opinion (and others) the wording is less ambiguous, using identical rather than single (which could have been misinterptreted as singular): "the spelling of the name of the euro shall be identical in the nominative singular case in all the official languages of the European Union, taking into account the existence of different alphabets". --Boson (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

from http://www.evertype.com/standards/euro/kevin.html which was and article in The Irish Times, 24 July 2002

"BY JOVE, we must be the the toast of Brussels. For we were told to have a non-plural plural for euro and cent, and we promptly obliged, even though it is idiocy, as any attempt to regulate language must be. But apparently it makes politically correct euro-sense to have a meaningless plural, if only because most of the plurals of the old currencies of euroland did not exist – as in deutschmark – or were there but remained silent, as in francs. And obedient to that mad compulsion to impose conformity, our Belgian lingocracy has prescribed one rule across euroland. So: we were told not to use a plural for euro, and obediently we did as instructed, opting for the new EU version of plurality, the pleural: one euro, two euro, one cent, two cent. It sounds ugly, it is ugly, it will always be ugly: but the pleural is proof of our abject euro-compliance, evidence that we are thoroughly good Europeans. To be sure, we will do nothing to defend our eurochums if they are attacked, and we even intend to pass a constitutional referendum so that our studied, pious unfriendship will then be graven in legal stone; but at least we will pronounce our pleurals as we are told to." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.13.81 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Current usage in (past) legislation in English is to use the plural without 'S', as correctly described at http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/InformationWebsite.htm?http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/faq.htm ("Spelling of the words "Euro" and "cent" in official community languages as used in community legislative acts [my emphasis]"), though it should be noted that this site cites Wikipedia on similar topics. This applies (or, at least, applied) specifically to legislation. Because of subsequent changes made to the official style guides one must be very careful to read exactly what the authorites (e.g. the ECB and the EC) write and note the date when it applied. --Boson (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the Wikipedia is not an instance of E.U. legislation, and since the Commission recommends the natural plurals to be used outside of legislation, it should be acceptable to use the natural plurals on the Wikipedia. (This has been the consensus here; check the archived discussion!) -- Evertype·✆ 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So it doesn't matter what the EU want or the ECB want what matters is what Wikki wants! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.222.33 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All of you, quit edit-warring

All of you, stop edit-warring over this now. I've already blocked one editor for violating WP:3RR over this issue; if this continues, I'll protect The Wrong Version. This is what talkpages are for. – iridescent 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some quotes from the ECB

Here are some quotes from the ECB's own publications. The emphasis is mine.:

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2008/html/sp080112.en.html

The successful entry of Malta into the euro area Speech by Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the ECB Keynote address at the Euro Celebrations Valetta, 12 January 2008

"Now, twelve days after the successful introduction of the new currency, I would like to stress that, in the short term, the conversion of prices into euros should not be used as an opportunity to raise prices in an unjustified manner."

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2008/html/sp080213_2.en.html

Keynote speech at the Second Symposium of the ECB-CFS research network on “Capital Markets and Financial Integration in Europe” Speech by Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the ECB at the Second Symposium of the ECB-CFS research network on “Capital Markets and Financial Integration in Europe”, Frankfurt am Main, 13 February 2008

Let me compare some main features of deposit insurance schemes across European countries, starting with coverage. [7] In EU countries, the amount of fully insured deposits per depositor varies between 20,000 euros, the minimum threshold prescribed by the Directive on Deposit Guarantee Schemes, and about 103,000 euros.

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2008/html/sp080214_1annex.pdf

China and NMS have lower import price level (euros per kg of EA manufacturing imports)

http://www.ecb.eu/pub/pdf/other/pp81-94_mb200802en.pdf SECURITISATION IN THE EURO AREA

Notes: Includes non-euro area European issuance, such as the issuance of securities with UK collateral. “CDOs” includes securities issued in euros only.

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2003/html/sp031027.en.html

The euro in central and eastern Europe Opening remarks by Ms Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell,Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank,Panel Discussion Euro Finance Week, 27 October 2003 Deutsche Bank, Frankfurt am Main.

The euro is also used as a financing currency. Indeed, countries in the region have been active issuers of bonds in euros.

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2001/html/sp010404_2.en.html

"E-economy: will we still need banks in the future?" Speech by Dr. Willem F. Duisenberg, President of the European Central Bank, at the XVIIth German Banking Congress, Berlin on 4 April 2001

In other words, electronic euros stored on a payment card must have the same value irrespective of when and by whom the card was issued. This important principle has been safeguarded in European legislation through the imposition of a redeemability requirement for e-money.

http://www.ecb.eu/pub/pdf/other/financialstabilityreview200412en.pdf

F I N A N C I A L S TA B I L I T Y R E V I E W D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 4

With the creation of an integrated money market in euros, the importance of funding risk may have declined.

http://www.ecb.eu/paym/cons/shared/files/T2S_urd_management_summary.pdf

T2S User Requirements - Management Summary

The objective is to achieve harmonised and commoditised delivery-versus-payment settlement in central bank money in euros (and possibly other currencies) in substantially all securities in Europe.

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2007/html/sp070502.en.html

Economic performance, institutions, and human values Speech by Lucas Papademos, Vice President of the ECB at the Second International Symposium on Universal Values: “Science, Technology and Human Values” The Academy of Athens, Athens, 2 May 2007

other words, Europeans seem to place more value on extra leisure than having a few extra euros in their pockets, while Protestant work ethics and a more materialistic attitude to life drive Americans to work harder.

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2001/html/sp010528.en.html

Testimony before the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliamentwith the President of the European Central Bank, in accordance with Article 113(3) of the Treaty on European Union

Mr Duisenberg:

As to the reference that Mrs Peijs made to public transport in the Netherlands, who have publicly announced that they will only accept euros as from the lst January and no longer guilders, I share the question with Mrs Peijs, whether that even is legal, and I have my doubts, I must confess.

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2002/html/sp020123.en.html

Testimony before the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliamentwith the President of the European Central Bank, in accordance with Article 113(3) of the Treaty on European Union Introductory statement by Dr. Willem F. Duisenberg, President of the European Central Bank, Brussels, 23 January 2002

Mr Duisenberg

I quoted the figures, I believe, in my introduction: in the course of last year the currency outstanding total declined by about 100 billion euros and part of that, but only a small part was currency that was returned from outside the euro area.

--Boson (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future adoptions

AS question for the community:

Does it really make sense to have dates for future adoptions, when this information (although sourced) is subject to speculation? The latest sample is Poland, where sources have cited a government figure saying that the euro will be introduced in Poland in 2011. This is very difficult to believe, particularly because Poland is not even an ERM II member yet.

I have seen sources, also from the Polish government, made a few days later after the previous announcement, which says that what the previous comment really meant was to be accepted by the ECB, not to be using the euro as currency. So the real date of adoption is 2012 and not 2011. I am sure that if I change the articles using this second source, even sourced, this gives a lot of place for speculation and edit-warring. So that is why I have not sourced.

What does people think about the dates, shall we avoid mentioning dates for future adoptions unless is completely real like Slovakia? If agreed we should remove all those dates which more likely change in the near future.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use dates anyway to avoid equality of all countries. In case we remove the dates it would became unclear what states are closer to the euro adoption and what are far away from this date. And the cronological sequence will be lost. --Dima1 (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if they are incorrect? Poland's case is definitely incorrect. I thought Wikipedia is about present and past accuracy and not about future speculation. How can we know which countries "are closer to the euro" without speculating? I vote for no dates and alphabetical order. I could also go for using the official voice of ECB and not other sources; something in those terms will be by far more accurate. As of now, Poland is incorrect, we are showing the public that Wikipedia is incorrect; that is my concern. Just my opinion though ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For the records, I hope I am incorrect, I do want all european countries to adopt the euro tomorrow if it were possible ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also for the records, here are the sources: ForexYard, BizPoland and The Gardian UK. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If the dates are incorrect please change them. Just provide reliable sources. The idea I explained is that in case we remove dates of euro adoption (even if they are approximative) it would not be seen the difference between the countries. For example, between Latvia and Romania now it is clear that Latvia is closer to the euro adoption date in comparison to Romania. If there were no dates both Latvia and Romania turn to be equal to the euro adoption date, that is absolutely incorrect. So, I think, it is more speculative fact than approximative date. So, I vote for keeping all the dates like it is now. --Dima1 (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dima1, I do understand that, but really, what makes you think that Latvia is closer than Romania to adopt the euro? Is it because their government said so? We could build an index: how many aspects of the convergence criteria does the country meet, and that is by far more realistic than dates. I do believe that a date given by the government to commit to use the euro does not mean anything about "is that country closer to the euro than the other".

About Poland, I know if I start changing dates in all articles, even sourced as shown, it will create speculation and edit-war; that is the reason why I am against dates in general. All sources will say different things; which one to choose?