Template talk:Infobox currency

ISO 4217: use checks & automated input

By now, {{ISO 4217/code}}, based on the full {{ISO 4217/cite}} source, is ready for this infobox.

A listing of the 452 data rows is in {{ISO 4217/overview}}. Changes to Infobox currency:

• {{ISO 4217/code}} checks whether the |iso_code= exists (is defined in ISO 4217).

Bad codes will categorise the article in new tracking category Category:Pages using ISO 4217 currency to check (7) (sort=C).

|iso_code=''None'' is recognised (any format), and shown. Categorises the article in public Category:Currencies without ISO 4217 code (92).

• The iso_number will be automatically added, per iso-code. Using {{ISO 4217/code-to-number}}. It appears that each code has the same number overall.

(Actual usefullness of the number, next to the code, is doubtful. Especially in this infobox; in article ISO 4217-list would be enough).

• "|exponent=" in ISO 4217 stands for minor unit: number of decimals for the subunit. For USD: "2", i.e. 0.01 (the cent). This number too is determined by the code. So {{ISO 4217/code-minor-unit}} will provide this automatic per the code. N.B. when historical, the minor unit is defined as blank, none.

The value is shown in actual decimal representation: 0.01 for "2". Note: many currencies have no or trivial minor unit defined: blank, "N.A." or "0" (?! trivial). These will show no minor unit.

Minor unit exception: twelve codes are ambivalent; they appear in both history and active list (List Three, List One). For example PEN. In this case, |obsolete=yes/no decides on which value applies. Default=no (Active).

• |iso_ref= is added. Will be placed after iso_code, iso_comment (properly non-spaced).
• Deprecated parameters: |iso_number, iso_exponent, iso_decimals= (unused, automated).

|obsolete_notification= is abandoned as main switch for obsolete/active. |obsolete=yes/no does this job.

Y prepared in sandbox. DePiep (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 code implemented. -DePiep (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Propose removal of Numeric Code (ISO 4217)

{{ISO 4217/overview}} lists all ISO 4217 code definitions (452 data rows). It also shows the Numeric code by ISO definition.

The actual definition, nor its usefulness, of the numeric is not known. I therefor propose to remove it from {{Infobox currency}}. (It can stay in the lists in article ISO 4217). If someone can clarify its definition & use, that would be helpful. -DePiep (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Support. I have never seen it the wild. My guess would be that it is to provide a constant reference number even if, for political reasons, the TLA is changed. Suppose, for example, the UK government were to declare that the ISO code for sterling should be changed from GBP to UKP, the index number would remain unchanged at 826. Whether in the real world that safety net would actually save horrendous disruption is highly doubtful. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Off-note: your guess is not what I found or met in the data. First, of course any serious Standard would not let outsiders like London decide their standard (BoE can do a lot by themselves, but ISO incorporates them by themselves. ISO follows BoE changes at their own judgement). And data analysis does not point to "standard stability" in any way or form (unlike, say, Unicode Standard does). It's very hard to detect a stable identifier (key), even over multiple properties (like combining code, List, end-date, entity: could be broken in a whimp). Sloppy data definitions is the word, and then there are the minor inconsistencies. For the current version, it is doable, but we are not sure what will change in the next one. I mean, publishing "<blank>" as a Currency Code, really?

For identifying purposes, the Numeric Code is not a help. DePiep (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In all probability you are right but with the level of ideologically driven lunacy displayed by our Dear Leaders in the past six years, it is certainly not far fetched. We can't assume that ISO has any control over it. See for example the their announcement page where the say that Turkey is now Turkiye. See also https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58734265 --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

ISO 4217 is decided on a different desk. It can only follow GovBanks, but will decide on their own codes &tc. It is not BoE that decides about "GBP" as ISO-code. (See also cryptocurrency: none has been given an ISO code). But alas, all asides. DePiep (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• It looks like Numeric Code is used as identifier (1:1 unique relation with the Code), eg at IBAN (which is serious in international money traffic; only few live codes are missing in that list). One big restriction: only valid for active currencies (List One). List Two and Three are out of bounds, and ruining the identification process: For example, over all Lists both codes ALK (L3=obsolete) and ALL (L1) have Numeric Code 008. With currenty definitions (17 Oct 2022), we can safely say "Number <-> Code" are mutually identfying.

For this, and by lack of other definitions, the Infobox will show the number, bracketed, with the Code when in List One (i.e., as when & as active). -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you are doing and it makes sense, but I disagree with your solution, sorry. To my eye, this:

Code    USD (840) cmt[1]

just looks too unconventional and will confuse the uninitiated. I'm afraid that "number" has to go back. For most readers, it is clutter but at least it is identifiably clutter that they can ignore with a clear conscience, especially if is wlinked as before. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Oops, only see this now. Will read later carefully (& /sandbox is bizzy with smthng else). DePiep (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

A new full line (row) for an insignificant identifier (noone is interested in) is a bit unbalanced to me. I am thinking, like:

	Code	USD  (numeric: 840)
		(comment below, no LH label)[1]

And Comment-brackets could be omitted (article editor). The thinking continues. -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Done this: now appears as "USD (numeric: 123)" on same line, |iso_comment= always on newline.

Good enough? (Thing is, I'm still not happy with a full new line for a derived, low imporatance secondary ID that numeric code is.) @John Maynard Friedman: DePiep (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that't better. I can't decide whether "numeric" needs a wlink but on balance probably not as I suspect that anyone really curious would expect to find it at ISO 4217. I agree that the numeric code definitely doesn't deserve its own line. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

OK. I'll hear you if in a few weeks there is still an itch. DePiep (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Infobox Lists: long & trivial

At euro, the infobox contains six lists each with 15–30 entries (rows), 103 rows in total. Thats the data points: user countries, printers, printer websites, mint, mint websites, pegging countries. (US dollar has 57 such rows, luckily they have only 1 mint and 1 printer).

The Data points. First of all, I question whether the websites of both mint and printer are infobox-worthy. Even if its just one. Same question for mint and printer names themselves. So that's four data names. Per WP:INFOBOX, (1) only info that's already in the article body can be summarised in the infobox and (2), it should be a summary not a full repetition let alone new info. We can and should require that this info, clearly deemed relevant to the article, be presented (listed) in the article itself. Removal from infobox then is easy to argue, possibly leaving a see-link in there (when mint/printer data is structured, eg fixed section name).

The numbers. About the euro example, with 103 list rows. All the above applies: why list mints & printers & peggers at all? Then, know that in mobile view, all lists are unfolded (euro (m)). That is: the Reader has to scroll all 103 lines (13 screens of infobox over here) to get to the second intro line "The currency is ...".

Proposal: best solution I can think of is to move the four mint, printer + websites lists to a section somewhere below. The IB then can have a "see § sectionlink". If needed, the IB can be adjusted to accomodate such links. Also, in the case of the large euro-numbers, an article body area can have the two full lists of using countries, pegging countries, with more info (maps!) in more space. DePiep (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Add to the list of data points: |currency_in_local_name=. (for example, euro lists eight languages). -DePiep (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Support per WP:think of the reader who is most likely to be on mobile. TBF, I'm not a neutral bystander. IMO these infoboxes are overloaded and indeed I pruned the pound sterling infobox as much as I dared (with favourable rather than adverse feedback so I could have gone in harder!). The euro is perhaps an extreme case but over the years these infoboxes have become the playground of every special interest group. The mint and printer info is surely only of interest to collectors. Split. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

May I invite you to move that data into article body? I don't think I have much extra time coming days/weeks. My "advise" available by question, not as how-to prescription ;-) DePiep (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• Pilot articles (evolving list)

Data points of interest: local_name, countries, printers, printer websites, mint, mint websites, pegging countries (each can be a list). Not considered a priori: coin & banknote lists, nicknames.

1. euro: 110 rows done
2. US dollar: 55 rows done 13:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Pound sterling: 30 rows done 17:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
4. French franc: 15 rows
5. Austro-Hungarian crown: ..

...

-DePiep (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Labels on the subunits plural lines

As may be seen at Swiss franc, display of the subunit plurals is a complete mess. The problem is general, just obvious in that case. AFAICS, the problem is created by using the subunit name as a label (for example, where it easier to see, pound sterling:

Subunit

1⁄100          penny

Plural

penny        pence

"Pence" is obviously the plural of penny. What else would it be? If there are four subunit names, as with CHF, listing in the same order makes it obvious.)

I think that it is this that is causing it:

label24 =  {{{subunit_name_1}}} (ditto label25, 26, 27, 28)

IMO, the label is redundant and should be omitted given the problem it causes.

@DePiep:, as you are working on the template, I don't want to risk messing up your work in progress by changing the template in mid-flight, so would you incorporate this change in your next "release", please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I have put it on my list. Hope it is lowhanging fruit. DePiep (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I hope so, but its the trivial changes that go horribly wrong I think this will do it:

label24 = {{nbsp}}

label25 = {{nbsp}}

label26 = {{nbsp}}

label27 = {{nbsp}}

label28 = {{nbsp}}

The nbsp is probably not needed but ... --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

{{void}} would be better as it makes it clear that the omission of any evident label is intentional. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you write down what output you expect? I expect some list or table thing. Don't worry about spaces, just the setup example for a subunit. DePiep (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Subunit
1⁄100          penny
Plural
                pence

Is that what you wanted? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

"plural" should not be a new, bold entry: all sub1 are together.

I'd prefer writing like "1⁄100 £" (add unit). Overall we better standardise the notation for sing/plural. "s / p" I propose. For local/Latin script, similar & add script name consistently. DePiep (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree re 'Plural' in bold but that's how it is at present. I have no objection to changing it.

re s/p, is this what you have in mind? (note revised position of currency symbol)

Subunit    (s)          (p)
£1⁄100          penny      pence

Two concerns: (a) the plural is redundantly obvious in most cases (cent/cents) and "its complicated" in others; (b) are there any long names that will make a dog's breakfast of the infobox, as in the case of the Swiss Franc (which is what provoked this discussion). Centesimo/Centesimi for example. Either way, I doubt that there is room for this arrangement. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

OK. Already looks better. We must accomodate the cases, that's part of the topic. Also needed: multiple scripts(/langs?), nicknames. To be continued. DePiep (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI, Template:Infobox_currency/testcases#subunits shows what is going on. You see the repetition of name input. CAn't promise speedy solution. DePiep (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It's beginning to look like the Tantalus story revisited for that low-hanging fruit . We need to find a way to show that the plural/symbol/nickname are subsidiary to sub-unit: right now they appear to have equal status. If we had that hierarchy, there would be no need to repeat the name input (which is what generated the mess at CHF). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Image caption?

Is it possible to add an image caption? toobigtokale (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? For example, pound sterling has two images with captions:

| image_1 = British 12 sided pound coin.png

| image_title_1 = £1 coin (obverse)

| image_2 = Bank of England £50 Series G obverse.jpg

| image_title_2 = Series G £50 banknote

Is that not enough? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh! Yes that’s what I was looking for toobigtokale (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)