This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Exchange rate. 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.
This table's criteria seem absurd to me. While the Swiss franc is completely backed by gold and the per capita income of the Swiss is high, the Turkish new lira started sliding again just like the old one because of overprinting and the per capita income of the Turks is low. That Turkey has ten times as much population as Switzerland makes Turkey as important? Please! --Q4313:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I can see your point. But ultimately, I didn't include the Turkish new lira, nor did I include Indonesian rupiah, which also has a bad record of inflation. I'd like to make 2 points about the table.
It is just a tool for making such decision. By no mean should we follow this table blindly.
At the same time, it is a necessary data for make such decision.
I've removed 6 of those currencies. While they might be noteworthy locally in some regions, they are not of consequence internationally. The Chinese currency may be re-added at a later date as the economy becomes more and more influential, however at this time it's not absolutely crucial to the world's economy. +Hexagon1(t)05:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
JPY is definitely more significant than AUD and CHF. IMHO, the original list is adaquet. It somewhat matches the list on xe.com. And it is possible to extend the template so that additional currencies can be optioanally added. Reverting now. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean to remove the yen. My bad on that. But my point remains valid, that table still includes a rather large amounts of unnecessary currencies. I don't think currencies such as Brazilian Reais and Mexican Pesos are of huge significance globally. +Hexagon1(t)04:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I realized that when I made some changes that were useful to the Turkish new lira in its own article, those changes affected all articles where this template is used! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Q43 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC).
This is what a template is for, for things that are common to many article. So when you need to change something, e.g. remove a "major" currency, you only need to do it in one place. and you don't need to duplicate the effort. --Chochopk18:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but what happens when in a certain article one needs to add a "minor" currency? --Q4313:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Principle of quoting exchange rate on an arbitrary date
IMO, it is not a good idea in principle to quote exchange rates as at some arbitrary date. It is not sustainable and not encylopedic. An annual average is far more useful.
It is not sustainable because it is unrealistic to expect that it will be revised for all currencies every day. Anyone who needs to know the actual daily rate will use a reliable source like XE.COM or OANDA.COM
It is not encyclopedic because, by capturing the rate on an arbitrary date, no useful understanding of long term price is conveyed to the reader.
The historical exchange rates (since 1990) that are given in Exchange rates section of the Economy of the United Kingdom entry, are far more useful. Spikes are smoothed and the reader gets a far better idea of the relative prices and how they move over time. It only needs to be updated once a year and the exact date is not critical. --Red King16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
What if we listed Historical exchange rates? For example, the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus provides historical rates for the Belarusian ruble. You would get the information from the countries web site (assuming they provide it). If no information is provided on the countries web site The CIA's | The World Factbook has the data compares other countries currency to the United States dollar.
I am not an expert at tables, but it could look something like this:
--Historical Exchange Averages--
Period
Belarusian rubel official average exchange rate against
I understand where you're coming from. I have no problem using bloomberg's "benchmark" currencies. I just felt that CNY is now more significant than HKD. The economy of mainland China is much bigger than that of HK, and is growing much faster. And CNY is not following one currency anymore, where as HKD is still pegged at a narrow band with USD. That's just how I view it. What about adding an option to add additional foreign currency that is important in terms of trade. For example, for Kazakhstan, the additional foreign currency would be RUB. For South Korea, it could be CNY. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
While I agree CNY has become a significant currency, any arbitrary cut-off for currencies would be WP:OR. While we might agree on 7 currencies (for example), someone might come along and dislike the last two currencies so he starts arguing for 5. Then someone from the nation using the sixth currency would disagree, and this could very rapidly deteriorate into an edit war (a similar thing happened at First World recently). I think following Bloomberg's standards is the best and least conflict-prone solution. +Hexagon1(t)02:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to open the Pandora box either. What do you think about the option to add another currency outside the 8 Bloomberg currencies? I understand WP:NOR and know what it is intended, but I think adhering to that rule strictly may hurt that the spreading of knowledge. In this instance, "the most important" trading partner to a country is probably not even OR. The CIA world factbook provides such data. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
While the Chinese currency may be important regionally, it is not a benchmark global currency (yet). In any case, making exceptions for particular currencies would unfortunately fall under what you called "open[ing] the Pandora box", soon we'd have people elaborating on how essential the inclusion of the North Korean won is. I like EdC's custom currency solution, well devised. +Hexagon1(t)11:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my appologies, I misunderstood you! Now your reference seems obvious but then I mustn't have been thinking straight. Good that EdC was WP:BOLD and and implemented your solution. +Hexagon1(t)11:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Confusing formatting
The formatting chosen is highly confusing. By looking like a section header, it invites the user to expect to see an edit-section hyperlink and (worse) be able to see it in the TOC.
I would like to convert it to a captioned table, similar to the below:
The nav box look can be confusing, because the links are not navigational. Many readers are probably used to the look and feel of wikipedia navbox, and this look and feel would be counter intuitive. I'm not against the first proposal. But the question is... if the mock section header is removed, under what section should we place this template? Before this template existed, such links are hard-coded by brute force like
OK, putting true section headers in templates doesn't work, because it screws up section editing, but fake section headers are confusing in their own way (confusing content with presentation). So, Template:Exchange Rate needs to work with or without a section header. That's why I suggested using a navbox-style class; it does make some sense if you think of the exchange rate links as external links. Here's an alternate example using the toccolours class:
The idea is that it should work as a drop-in replacement, but a section header could also be added, as simple as ==Current exchange rates==. EdC14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)–
This has been sitting around for a bit. I have to say I hate the fake header, it took me a while to figure where it came from and:
I've removed Currate.com from the template, because it attempts to prevent users of ad blockers from accessing rates, making it less useful to a lot of readers. NeonMerlin[1]21:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed this comment as it is improper when comparing to other sites, such as Wall Street Journal with many links that requires paid subscription. - RJR
===============
Based on Wiki contributor's suggestion, I removed adblock scripts from all Currate.com web pages, as he said that everyone should be able to view the web pages without any restrictions. For that, please accept my apologies for all troubles. Robertrade (talk)
I have again removed this website. It appears to be of little significance compared to the other four, which share vast amounts of web traffic in the area of financial services, and is persistently added by an user which appears to be the site's administrator (and who has almost no edits in unrelated areas). Little more than an attempt to get unpaid exposure for the website. —what a crazy random happenstance02:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I restored Currate.com site, as there is no reason for the removal, as it has great tools, including currency images that other sites do not have. Please leave it alone, as it meets Wikipedia requirements.Robertrade (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC).
See the comments above, and especially that of Happenstance. You have a COI in adding this link and should not do so again. --John (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Robert, the relevant policies are here and here. I quote from the Spam policy: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed" and also from the Conflict of Interest policy: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interest of Wikipedia." The other four websites are extremely notable and have been agreed upon for inclusion by community consensus that has held stable for several years. Your website has on the other hand been repeatedly removed. I'm sorry, but this is not the appropriate venue to advertise your website, and continued efforts to do so will eventually lead to action being taken to protect the template. —what a crazy random happenstance06:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Site
Now that another Pandora box has been opened. Now we have 3 websites for exchange rate. As discussed before, someone could come along, and argue that an xyz exchange rate website is "the" website for exchange rate. I'd like to limit this discussion to the 4 best known website for exchange rate, and evaluate them.
accurate
covers all currencies
graph
historical
has inverse rate on the same page w/o clicking
Yahoo
almost
looks like so
some
No
No
XE
more so than the others
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Oanda
almost
looks like so
No
Yes
Yes
Google
not enough significant digits
no TJS, BAM
Yes
No
No
How do I know if the numbers of a website are "accurate"? There are a number of currencies pegged to the euro. The fixed exchange rate is well known. You can easily search them on the internet, or even more easily, on the respective central bank websites. If the number matches, then it is said to be accurate. "Historical" column means detail numeric values on historical data, not just a graph.
For those who keeping adding google to the template, please see table above. Yes, Google is notable but it has serious deficiencies. When/if these are rectified, it can be added. --Red King22:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this table may be outdated - Google, for example, is providing up to the billionth place on some conversions, yet is not considered to have enough precision to be judged on it's accuracy. I thought it might be necessary to point out in case anybody comes back to this that the data is stale. Major_Small (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Given this, it might make more sense to use USD, GBP, EUR, CAD, AUD, INR, PHP, SGD instead... ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 19:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that it may make more sense to use the currencies of English Wikipedia users, instead of some particularly popular currencies at the currency exchange markets, would we get a stable list of countries? Excluding any USD/EUR users in the "Other" category, I get the following "most popular" order: USD, GBP, EUR, CAD, INR, AUD, PHP, BRL, with SGD gone from the list completely. Would the list have to be updated very often? Is the current method of finding currencies more stable? (Stefan2 (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC))
the links to oanda don't work. the auto-url formatting or whatever it's supposed to do- just lands you on @ their converter & you hafta enter whatever 2 currencies you want.
and- with IQD I noticed there is no data on google finance. looks like this 'currency' is not really traded by banks on the global market. so- can we make this template exclude the links to google finance for now since there is no data? skakEL15:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
if someone wants to fix the oanda links, a good permalink format for a desired currency pair is:
I don't know how feasible this is, or if it's considered desirable (or even if it's already available and I haven't found it), but:
It would be useful to have another template (or other functionality) whereby amounts of money could be converted to a single user-specified currency, defaulting to a currency specified in the user's Wikipedia preferences. Thus a user in Peru could click on an amount in renminbi and the nuevo sol value would be displayed, with an optional drop-down list to change to a different currency. The most common requirement is perhaps not a comprehensive list, but "how much is that in my currency?"Pol098 (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Request to return my edits
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
On April 4, 2016 I made few edits for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Exchange_rate by replacing missing syntax for currency conversion website. Someone added few links on September 10th and user:Mascarponette has believed it was a spam, and I understand templates like this are huge spam magnets. Anyway, my edits/fixes has nothing to do with Transfertmate/Transfertwise but unfortunately my work was also removed by Mascarponette. I'm kindly asking you to return my work/edits or use backup txt file https://www.dropbox.com/s/x9hchz66hassvfp/edit.txt?dl=0
@Tomdavis1: still not done for now, I've taken another look at the template history, specifically this. Several things trouble me. Firstly, you should probably hear back from Mascarponette and request further explanation/awareness before the change is synced. Second, it's currently unclear to me (personally) why "currency.wiki" meets notability guidelines and is reliable for inclusion. If Mascarponette does not get back to you, ping me again, or re-open the actual request by changing |answered=no for more immediate visibility. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb)04:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm not getting any response from Mascarponette. As far as your questions; please check Alexa rank http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/currency.wiki plus, If you look at the history, the currency conversion website http://currency.wiki was contributed to Wikipedia over a year ago, why removing now, I see no spam and rates are very accurate. Why don't you browse it, compare with other sites? But, this is how I feel when I contribute my work as you do, so I notice few syntax issues that I've decided to fix and now its removed :) There is a saying, what ever happens, happens for good. Thanks for reading I wont be pursuing this any further. Just getting more and more bricks. Tomdavis1 (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Tomdavis1: Thanks for your patience. (please remember to ping; I just happened to glance back at this page and see a reply) Please don't let these replies discourage you, and understand that I'm not trying to push back... there are policies and guidelines in place, and sometimes it's not easy to get used to all of it. Your good faith edits were unfortunately caught in an edit war, which has potential consequences, so I just want to be careful. It does look like currently fxtop is ranked 163k while currency.wiki is ranked 93k. I read the site's about page, and my impression is that it is not a spam page. I'm still unsure about its reliability at this point, and now I have a further question about why another currency link is needed when the five given work reasonably reliably already? Also, it hasn't been a week yet since your post on that user's talk page... give some more time. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb)05:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I already reverted in the past currency.wiki, I still don't see what value added provide these 3 sites (currency.wiki, transfer mate and transfer wise) to the project, nothing. We can't have thousands of external links. fxtop is the only one to have such huge history (far back 1953) with lots of other nice features (cross fx rate, world map, pocket guide, converter in the past, inflation), and no reliability problem as source are central banks.Mascarponette (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't agree fxtop provide the value modern readers are seeking for. Look at the design, look at the user experience - 0. Not even a mobile version. It's full of banner ads. The only thing fxtop provide is history (not sure about the credibility of these anymore). It says is currency converter, but you cant convert amount you want, you can see just 1 vs 1. New and better sources are not allowed and marked as spam from people who doesn't even know a thing about exchange rates...Also I see this in the footer - Exchange rates are refreshed daily and are the official ones published by Central banks, but the link leads to Fatal error. Does someone even maintain this website? I don't think it provides accurate and trusted info to Wiki readers. About Transfer mate and Transfer wise, I think both are way too better than fxtop. This is not about hundreds of external link, it's about relevant and useful information and option to readers freely to compare exchange rates... Anstoyanov (talk) 1:38 PM, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a fully compliant mobile version on fxtop and currency converter is on bottom of the page of the currency pair portal, it converts simultaneously several values~which is more user friendly than other web sites. The link "Exchange rates are refreshed daily and are the official ones published by Central banks" doesn't link to fatal error but to a page saying "Exchange rates are refreshed daily (from monday to friday) and are the official ones published by the European Central Bank. Some minor exchange rates come from other sources (like African Development Bank). Historic rates are official ones, we use European Central Bank exchange rates since May 2000. Before May 2000, we retrieved exchange rates from Dutch central bank, Deutsche Bundesbank, Bank of England, US federal reserve, World Bank, Bank of Japan. ". Fxtop graphs are used by reference book about Economics from Oxford University Press written by Richard Lipsey and Alec Chrystal Mascarponette (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Still I can't say fxtop is good enough compared to others. Thinking Mascarponette is somehow related to this website. Can someone else tell his thoughts on this discussion...Anstoyanov (talk) 2:51 PM, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Currency Wiki
Why was CurrencyWiki removed from the template? Apparently there was some argument in the edits where an user very obstinately insisted on removing some of the sources. Apparently he overdid it and removed CurrencyWiki as well. And then he had the template protected so that his unilateral and undiscussed edits could no longer be undone. I think CurrencyWiki should go back into the template. http://currency.wiki --Maxl (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I visited several times this site as I removed it in the past. I did another deep look right now at this site and don't see the value added. I also searched for references about this site and I don't find any. About page don't tell where prices come from, so there are doubts it is a reliable source, please note that we can't put lots of links in this template. Mascarponette (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I also don't agree with last changes maskarponte did. The web is growing, and the relevant sources too. Of course we can't add many links here, but my opinion is that up to 7-8 websites will be best for readers considering the fact some of the websites listed in the template doesn't provide option to really exchange money. For example I can see the best rate in fxtop, but I am not able to get it from there, instead I will probably click on one of the ads there and get different rates. So in this case the information may not be valid provided for me or any other who want to get the rate. I am not saying FxTop doesn't provide value, but you can't say the links you removed doesn't since all 3 provide real exchange rates. Don't know about currencywiki, but transferwise and transfermate are both well known, mentioned and cited in top medias, so my suggestion is to allow more websites added in this template, because we are not talking about external links here, we talk about the readers and the info they are looking for. --Shark8866 (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
You say that in your opinion Currency Wiki is not reliable. What's your reason for this claim? Just because you haven't been able to find out how they collect their data? I also understand that you deleted the links without previous discussion. And I don't think there were "lots of links". I think it's an improvement to be more diverse. So your deletion apparently was a quite personal decision. All you stated was more like your personal opinion than official policy of Wikipedia. I move to put Currency Wiki back into the template! Ah yes, and it borders on a PA to call someone who does not share your opinion a single-purpose account. --Maxl (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, last month I watched South Sudanese pound page and clicked on all the 5 links of this 'Exchange rate' feature to get the current South Sudanese pound exchange (SSP) rates. But the 4 first ones were not working because Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, Oanda and XE don't seem to support this currency. The last one from fxtop.com was working but the other day I was surprised not to find the fifth link and didn't remember which site it was. I couldn't understand why it disappeared because there was not related recent change on the South Sudanese pound article. David Biddulph told me to look at this template. I noticed at the history that user 'Coffee' removed the links to fxtop.com website on December 9 2019 saying it was controversial. I don't know why he or she says that because the website tells that exchange rates comes from central banks, it seems used as reference for academic research or books (see https://fxtop.com/en/about.php). I looked quickly at the talk page (unchanged since 2018), Andy W and Mascarponette said this site was fine, but some other users wanted other web sites saying they have better web search rank (? but not giving proof they were reliable). And actually this fxtop web site supports currencies that the 4 other ones don't (like South Sudanese pound), making now this feature useless at least for SSP article. So it would be nice if you could revert last change from user 'Coffee' done on December 9 2019, without prior talk. Valerie Nurse (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I discovered www.currency.wiki through Wikipedia around the beginning of 2016 when researching Pound sterling and a few other currencies, and now it is missing from the template.
After reading on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Exchange_rate, I notice it was caught in the middle of edit war,
when removing transferwise.com and transfermate.com on 09:49, 19 September 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Exchange_rate&diff=740146505&oldid=738657073
Personally, I think both are credible sources, so I'm not sure why the user stated "low value added sites removed" and removed both sites along with currency.wiki.
I also agree with Maxl (talk·contribs) that the decision to delete these sites was based on personal opinion. User Tomdavis1 (talk·contribs) was trying to get edits reverted but did not get a consensus before requesting an edit. So I would like to present a reasonable use-case to reach a consensus to return currency.wiki. If you have an option to visit this website, you'll notice how fast it loads, clean, responsive, and how easy to select different currencies and convert instantly by inputting the numeric values. In other words, meaningful and relevant experiences to users, including aspects of design, function, and usability plus a very helpful option to select a decimal separator and thousands separator when converting.
For example, US currency is formatted with a decimal point as a separator between the dollars and cents. Other countries use a comma instead of decimal to indicate that separation. If you check the snapshot https://henrysdoc.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/2020-03-17_12-26-13.png or visit the website and try it yourself, you'll agree that this is a very helpful feature, and it will benefit Wikipedia users from other countries and help them display conversion in a specific format.
Unfortunately, listed currency conversion sites like Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, XE, etc... do not have this feature, so let's return currency.wiki back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Exchange_rate. Thank you for reading and help me reach a positive consensus. Please keep in mind that simply reverting original currency.wiki edits back into the template will not work since its using a new HTTPS secured URL structure, and it has to be added manually; please follow the visual instructions here https://henrysdoc.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/visual+code+placement.png and the code https://henrysdoc.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/COPY+CODE.txt if consensus has been reached.
Best regards! Henryguide (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Note also that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. I would argue that we already have too many links in the table and would oppose adding more. I don't know if it is still true but the present list arose because it was the minimum needed to cover every currency, including some very obscure ones. --Red King (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It was indeed a matter of personal opinion that led to the deletion of the links to www.currency.wiki. There was no consensus for this, and as I see here, a few users are trying to turn it around by claiming that the point is there is no consensus to reinstall www.currency.wiki when there was, as I said, in fact, no consensus to remove it in the first place. The claim that currency.wiki was "low value" was never proven. Also, the argument that there are already "too many links" in the template is false. Apparently some here are trying to prevent sensible edits by invoking the "no link farm" rule of Wikipedia when it's completely besides the point. Please, instead, answer to the arguments brought by Henryguide (talk·contribs) instead of trying to get rid of a sensible request by formalities that don't even fit here! He explained at great length why currency.wiki needs to be restored and you only write a few words, evading all the main arguments. That's not the way a discussion should take place in the Wikipedia! --Maxl (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Need clarification
@Cabayi (talk)
I'm not Wikipedia savvy, can you explain in your own words how to establish consensus step by step? I thought this was a request exactly for that reason. Henryguide (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Henryguide:, to demonstrate consensus, you make a proposal (such as the one you have done above, just copy it into the RFC) and invite comment. The formal process is WP:RFC. A simplistic summary of WP:consensus is that it is demonstrated when a reasonable number of editors agree with your proposal and, where possible, the concerns of the unconvinced are addressed. --Red King (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Henryguide:, I don't think you will actually need to use the full wp:RFC procedure, which is really for controversial issues of significance to many editors. We should really expect to resolve this question here. What I meant was that you should look at the key points of the procedure and cover them in your proposal. You will need leave an alert at talk:exchange rate and similar (but not at every individual currency page) to draw the attention of interested editors to the discussion. --Red King (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Red King (talk)
I understand that you are concerned about too many links, but did you read what I've stated? The site was already up until it was accidentally removed. I was just trying to bring it back because if you compare other sites, this one is much better in terms of user experience, wouldn't you agree? Henryguide (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Henryguide:, there are any number of currency sites out there. On what basis should we choose or reject any candidates? Yes, you make a good case for your preference and I don't object to it in principle. But for it to be admitted (IMO), one of the existing entries should be deleted so that we can maintain a line in the sand that there should be no more than four. An argument that would convince me is WP:worldwide view: the list should not all be US-based. I guess the RFC should also address the question of 'how many is too many?, how do we decide?'. You make a good argument that your preference was deleted without consensus. Likewise there is no formal evidence of consensus for any limit (four or anything else), except that additions have been reverted (not by me). Anyway, that takes us into RFC commentary so best I stop at that point. --Red King (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. This is not about deleting another line. It is about reverting an edit that was made without consensus. I said so above in my post to which you apparently ignored. I think your point is you want to be able to say, we cannot re-enter currency wiki because we have no consensus for another line to be deleted. However, as I said before, there was no consensus for removing currency wiki which was a decision based on the opinion of a single user. Sp currency wiki must be re-entered WITHOUT further condistions! --Maxl (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 29 March 2020: Fix WP:EL violation
The links in the first column violate WP:ELNO #13 ("the link should be directly related to the subject of the article", i.e. the specific currency) and should be removed. While we are at it, replacing them with wikilinks to the articles about these websites has the additional benefit of offering the reader independent encyclopedic context information about the remaining seven or eight subject-specific links to that site. In detail:
I discovered www.currency.wiki through Wikipedia around the beginning of 2016 when researching Pound sterling and a few other currencies, and now it is missing from the template.
After reading on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Exchange_rate, I notice it was caught in the middle of edit war,
when removing transferwise.com and transfermate.com on 09:49, 19 September 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Exchange_rate&diff=740146505&oldid=738657073
Personally, I think both are credible sources, so I'm not sure why the user stated "low value added sites removed" and removed both sites along with currency.wiki.
I also agree with Maxl (talk·contribs) that the decision to delete these sites was based on personal opinion. User Tomdavis1 (talk·contribs) was trying to get edits reverted but did not get a consensus before requesting an edit. So I would like to present a reasonable use-case to reach a consensus to return currency.wiki. If you have an option to visit this website, you'll notice how fast it loads, clean, responsive, and how easy to select different currencies and convert instantly by inputting the numeric values. In other words, meaningful and relevant experiences to users, including aspects of design, function, and usability plus a very helpful option to select a decimal separator and thousands separator when converting.
For example, US currency is formatted with a decimal point as a separator between the dollars and cents. Other countries use a comma instead of decimal to indicate that separation. If you check the snapshot https://henrysdoc.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/2020-03-17_12-26-13.png or visit the website and try it yourself, you'll agree that this is a very helpful feature, and it will benefit Wikipedia users from other countries and help them display conversion in a specific format.
Unfortunately, listed currency conversion sites like Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, XE, etc... do not have this feature, so let's return currency.wiki back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Exchange_rate. Thank you for reading and help me reach a positive consensus. Please keep in mind that simply reverting original currency.wiki edits back into the template will not work since its using a new HTTPS secured URL structure, and it has to be added manually; please follow the visual instructions here https://henrysdoc.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/visual+code+placement.png and the code https://henrysdoc.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/COPY+CODE.txt if consensus has been reached.
Best regards!
Henryguide (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Survey
Comment I would be happy to support this proposal if (and only if) one the existing lines is deleted. Although there is no record of a formal consensus that no more that four services should be given, the history of additions and subtractions shows that to be the stable number. The table should never be so large as to dominate the article that invokes it. So IMO, one of the existing lines needs first to be nominated for deletion in favour of this one, with a reason why it is inferior. --Red King (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Support And let me add, no there must not be any conditions ("only if") for the return of Currency Wiki. And who says four is a "stable number"? Have you got any proof for that. I am under the impression that conditions like the above are often made in order to prevent proposed changes without having to say so directly. Therefore I strongly oppose any conditions to be made in addition to the proposal of returning currency wiki to the template. --Maxl (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64 and Henryguide: I've supplied a brief neutral signed question for the RfC. I sincerely don't believe it can impact the opinions of the commentators so far. Hopefully Logobot will be happy now and the RfC will get the publicity it deserves. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry, pal, you're WAY WAY besides the point. Why don't you rather answer to the arguments instead of trying to depreciate them as being "too long"? It seems you are trying to put off this motion by formalities! There is NOTHING AT ALL wrong with the motion and the statement! Everyone here seems to be intent on avoiding to answer to the actual arguments which means they are, obviously, too good to contradict and that's why mere formalities are cited. --Maxl (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Maxl: The above is a standardized message that Redrose64 delivers to any RfC over the character limit. It's purely concerning the technical aspects of the RfC, and not any comment on the content. {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You are catering exactly to my point. He shouldn't deliver standard messages, he should answer to the arguments! Using boilerplate text is, of course much easier than answering to the actuall arguments but it's usually unhelpful and besides the point and shows that the writer isn't actually interested in answering to the arguments but wants to be finished quickly. --Maxl (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not going to "answer to the arguments" because, frankly, I don't care about the issue at hand. I also don't want it to be "finished quickly", but I do want it to be given its fair amount of publicity, just like the other 70 or so current RfCs have been given.
If you look at the box at the top of this section, the one beginning "An editor has requested comments from other editors", you will see that it has a link to Wikipedia proposals; follow that link and you arrive at a page listing five RfCs each beginning with a link. Four of the five links are followed by a statement, signature and a timestamp; but the last one (which is the link right back here to Template talk:Exchange rate) has neither statement, signature nor timestamp. This is because Legobot (talk·contribs) - which builds Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals and similar pages - cannot parse this RfC to find those items, and this is because there is too much text before the first timestamp.
Referring back to the "Wikipedia proposals" RfC list, one of them - by RexxS (talk·contribs) - is just six words long; I'm not asking you to go that far, but it does show just how brief an RfC statement can be made with some careful thought. I'm also not asking for neutrality, because Legobot, being a bot, cannot distinguish a neutral statement from a biased one. All I am asking is that you provide a shorter statement so that Legobot is able to process it, and therefore be able to publicise it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@QEDK:@QEDK:
I presented a reasonable use-case per your suggestion but not getting anywhere? Please advice. Thanks!
@Redrose64:@Redrose64:@Pine:
I'm not Wikipedia savvy, so that is why I've asked for guidance from other Wikipedia experts, please check the history. I followed similar steps as "Vallery Nurse" to reverse edits for FXTOP, how did that census got approved? but making me jump through hoops when I made a similar request by presenting a reasonable use-case to return the edits for currency.wiki. Please scroll to the bottom and read https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Exchange_rate&diff=934030155&oldid=933930360 Second time, Red King was trying to help, but I guess he was wrong. From this point on, I'm honestly confused. Henryguide (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Second RfC about returning Currency.wiki back to exchange rate template
The tag was removed but clearly states "When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list." there was no discussion nor expiration date, or am I missing something? Henryguide (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Henryguide: Please don't use the {{rfc}} tag to ask for help (see WP:RFCNOT). When asking for assistance on something that has occurred (presumably a tag of some kind being removed), it's best to provide a diff of the edit or edits in question.
As regards reverts, have you asked the person who made the revert? Your first diff shows an edit by Valerie Nurse (talk·contribs), your second an edit by QEDK (talk·contribs). Only the second of these is a revert.
It was reverted because there was a use-case for the link - I spoke to Coffee (the person I reverted) and they agreed with it as well, nothing more complicated. :) --qedk (t愛c)19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I apologize, that message was not towards you, I was saying in general whoever was archiving my posts. Even though you've stated that its bot and usually after 40 days of inactivity but sounds like it happened again. Henryguide (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it - I only justified my revert since you said "why was that done so fast?" --qedk (t愛c)17:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Please stop archiving my questions
This is an issue with Wikipedia, absolutely not fair to other contributors. Not sure if its a bot or a person, but whoever is doing this, PLEASE STOP archiving my posts. Please be fair. Thank you! Henryguide (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Please don't make complaints like that when it's already been explained to you. Consider this edit of yours: most of it was a reversion of the previous edit, and in so doing you erased part of the edit summary, the part that would have read Special:Contributions/Lowercase sigmabot III|Lowercase sigmabot III]] ([[User talk:Lowercase sigmabot III|talk]]). That would have given you an immediate clue.
In the edit summary that you typed in to replace that, you remark "who ever is doing this, please stop": you can very easily find out, since the edit that you reverted is quite clearly marked as having been made by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk·contribs). This is a bot, and not only is it not watching this page, it cannot answer you.
Prior to that, you claim "this is very suspicious, there is no reason to archive this" - it's not suspicious at all, I explained it above; the bot archives threads that have no activity in 40 days. The most recent timestamp on the thread that it archived was 16:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC) and 40 days on from that is 16:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC), so archiving is working as designed.
In your post above, you request "PLEASE STOP archiving my posts". In the thread that was archived, three people had posted - HaeB (talk·contribs), Evad37 (talk·contribs) and Mascarponette (talk·contribs). None of those is you. Moreover, when Lowercase sigmabot III runs next, it will archive that thread again, because it will still be more than 40 days since the most recent activity. That will produce another problem - the thread will then be in Template talk:Exchange rate/Archive 1 twice, meaning that somebody (probably me) will need to do a maintenance job to remove the duplication. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Look, why can't you understand that lowercase sigmabot III (talk·contribs) is a bot, it is not a human being. It cannot read English, let alone understand any questions or remarks that are posted in threads. It cannot identify unanswered questions. It certainly cannot distinguish an open thread from one where useful discussion has concluded. All it cares about is how many days have elapsed since the last post to the thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Conversion direction: correctness and consistency
I stumbled across this template at Swedish krona § Exchange rate as I was researching the Nobel Peace Prize. That award comes with about 9 million SEK, but how much is that "in real money", I wondered. Happily, there's a table with a few Forex site links, so I could click in the row for OANDA (my usual site) on the "USD" link and see how many dollars in a krona. Or really: how many dollars in 9 million Krona?
That's fine (and what I expected), but if I click on the links for other sites, like the XE USD link, I go to a page telling me how many krona in a dollar. In other words, backwards. The Yahoo and fxtop links are wired this way, too (in my view, backwards), and the Google similarly displays the currencies "backwards", but allows entering "9000000" in either field for an immediate conversion in whichever direction I want.
So:
Shouldn't these links be going from the first parameter's currency to the other currencies?
Shouldn't all of these links be built to convert in the same direction (even if it's the direction I call "backwards")?
The fxtop pages, hideous in appearance though they are, appear to be served as https now, so our links should point that way. (Furthermore, in my current WP skin [Modern], there's a padlock icon next to all https links, and something smaller next to http links. As a result, the table doesn't line up nicely, because the fxtop links are each a little narrower.) Thanks,— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC) — JohnFromPinckney (talk)04:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The current format of Google Finance links from this template is https://www.google.com/finance?q=XXXYYY (where XXX is the first currency and YYY is the second. However, those links no longer work and don't redirect to anything useful, they just go straight to the Google Finance home page. The new Google Finance currency exchange link format is https://www.google.com/finance/quote/XXX-YYY. Since I can't edit this template, I would appreciate it if someone with the necessary permissions could. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@QEDK: Given this discussion (started by Irwc), I’m removing our usage of fxtop here. The evidence presented there, granted I can’t read French without translation, seems to fit WP:DUCK regarding the owner of fxtop and other Wikimedia accounts (including the one which requested fxtop remain on the template, and another which had added fxtop to begin with). If so, we have to weigh whether that is an attempted gaming of our system we want to stop, against whether fxtop’s data is needed. I’m interested to your thoughts on this (when you get active again)… I lean in the direction of removal for now (hence why I’m taking it off again).
If anyone watching this talk page has input, please feel free to ping me (TPEs/sysops: please feel free to revert the removal if there is substantial disagreement). @Irwc: Veuillez me faire savoir s'il y a un changement important dans les faits. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The VisualEditor currently uses an autogenerated descriptions for this template, which could be confusing to editors using it. Here's the proposal for descriptions:
Where does this template normally go within an article? I'm staring at Nepalese rupee. It's in the See Also section, but I think it would be better served in an External Links section. I came here to find the answer in the documentation and only found snide first-person template documentation. Somebody needs to grow up. — voidxor01:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Can template be revised to ignore parameters that duplicate the default set?
and as can be seen, three additional columns were added that duplicate those in the default set. Would it be possible to discard such duplication? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
