Talk:Currency

Untitled

Wouldn't it be better if the currency codes appeared in parentheses after each country name in the first table? --Pinkunicorn

The history section of this page is desparately in need of a re-write. It is misleading, garbled and ummm.... {bites tongue}. I have no time to fix it right now. Perhaps someone else could have a go . Octothorn 07:31 22 May 2003 (UTC)

With the advent of the Euro, the Lira, Peseta, and other European currency signs now belong in the history section.

Why is the Tanzanian shilling not included in the list? -> because this came about as Tanzania departed from the East African common currency in 1965? Until then, Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika/Tanzania used the same currency: East African Shilling. This was at the time bound to GBP. Khflottorp 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is erroneous to imply the ISO 4217 obsoletes national currency symbols; that is not its purpose. It should, however, be considered to obsolete previous ad-hoc symbols for distinguishing national currencies with the same symbol, particularly the many dollars (e.g., CDN$, A$, NZ$, etc.). 18.24.0.120 04:11, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Which is the proper format, to capitalize or not capitalize the currency name? For example, we have Australian dollar, but Mexican Peso Nik42 19:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it. I noticed that the ones like Mexican Peso were redirects to the non-capitalized versions Nik42 02:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some sections, like Privately-issued currencies are repeated. This should be fixed.

Crowns

If krona/krone are to be merged (which I support), then the Czech koruna and Estonian kroon should also join the family. Jpatokal 13:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

disagree as this edit looses information, ie what currency applies to which country (and v.v.). Yes they are a 'family' of Crowns but the individual names and relevance (ie country of origin) must be retained across that edit - the primary point of having a reference work like WP imho! List them in a tree, but don't 'merge'. --Vamp:Willow 15:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not proposing that country names be removed, I'm proposing that we move all the crowns under the same heading, and then list the exact name and country under the heading. Jpatokal 03:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletet some repeated text

I just removed some text that was repeated:

A currency is a unit of exchange, facilitating the transfer of goods and services. It is a form of money, where money is defined as a medium of exchange rather than e.g. a store of value. A currency zone is a country or region in which a specific currency is the dominant medium of exchange. To facilitate trade between currency zones, there are exchange rates i.e. prices at which currencies (and the goods and services of individual currency zones) can be exchanged against each other. Modern currencies can be classified as either floating currencies or fixed currencies based on their exchange rate regime.

Typically, each country has given monopoly to a single currency, controlled by a state owned central bank, although exceptions to this rule exist. Several countries can use the same name, each for their own currency (e.g. Canadian dollars and US dollars), several countries can use the same currency (e.g. the euro), or a country can declare the currency of another country to be legal tender (e.g. Panama and El Salvador have declared US currency to be legal tender).

Each currency typically has one fractional currency, often valued at 1/100 of the main currency: 100 cents = 1 dollar, 100 centimes = 1 franc. Units of 1/10 or 1/1000 are also common, but some currencies do not have any smaller units. Mauritania and Madagascar are the only remaining countries that do not use the decimal system; instead, the Mauritanian ouguiya is divided into 5 khoum, while the Malegasy ariary is divided into 5 iraimbilanja. However, due to inflation, both fractional units have in practice fallen into disuse.

was repeated under:

The Paper Money Era

(I did not write the above info; it is unsigned) I'm going to go ahead and also remove some text (under Early Currency) that was just... horribly written:

Currency is representation of energy transfer occurring in a transaction between living beings, all life forms need energy to sustain life hence it is the "only" criteria that can truly reflect transactions between life forms. Humans are now dominant life form on global ecosystem, hence all human transactions need to be represented in terms of energy, otherwise economics has no meaning.

Currency need to satisfy 3 functions to become true representation of transactions between living beings. 1. Medium of exchange 2. Store of value 3. Delivery of value

The earliest use of "currency" was using food in bartering. Food grains like Rice, Wheat were used as currency in Indian villages from ancient times to about 1970. Food grains has the best qualities to be true currency 1.can be used as medium of exchange. 2. can be used as store of value (storage period upto 20 years) 3. can be used as delivery of value, food can be eaten so does not need one more transaction to realize value. Use of food grains as currency is the most sustainable and inflation proof currency system that existed in the world and made India a major hub in global trade for centuries. Using gold as currency is the longest running scam in the world, because gold can never satisfy "3.Delivery of value", condition to be true currency, this is the secret of gold currency scam, making people exchange "valuable" stuff against a "useless" substance.

For one, it definitely does not have a neutral standing with its comments such as stating the usage of gold as a "scam." Two, what the user said there (or rather, tried to say) was basically rewritten with much better grammar (and sense) below it. Good Lord, I'm sick to my stomach after trying to correct all the grammar porn in there before realizing...Bootchild (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Bootchild

Independence vs. Private Corporation

To preempt a revert war, I think we should settle whether the Fed is an independent agency or a private corporation. The case law cited refers to Tort liablity rather than monetary independence. The relevant staute stating that Congress can dissolve Fed Reserve is here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc_sec_12_00000341----000-.html. The text: "To have succession after February 25, 1927, until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law."

In an article on currency, the relevant axis on analysis is monetary policy. The Fed's power in this area is clearly given by Congress, and what Congress gives, it can take away. The Fed's status as a private corporation in regards to Tort law is much less relevant in a currency article.

Also, we don't want to bog down on the US Fed's status in the intro paragraphs that should give general overview to all users from all countries. No US-only focus. Feco 03:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further, refer to Federal_Reserve#Who_owns_the_Federal_Reserve on this. Discussion about the Fed's status belongs on the Fed' wiki page to begin with.

I'll also refrain that a court ruling about tort liablity of Federal government for the Federal Reserve's actions DOES NOT apply to monetary policy. Feco 03:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Governments don't rule central banks, central banks rule governments. If you want to just give the "public relations" perspective on things then remove my editings and replace them with a link to the FED's website. But if you want to provide something which accurately depicts the reality of currency, what it is and how it functions in society and how it is manipulated in ways not beneficial to citizenry of soverign nations, then at the very least you it should just MENTION that ultimate *OWNERSHIP* of central bank *SHARES* lie with *PRIVATE* entities (namely the banking families of Europe who have been around for quite some time now).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve

Yes, the criticism article is linked to from the Fed wiki article. It is NOT linked to from the Currency article, because there is no place for it here. The generic overview of monetary authority and how it relates to currency is sufficient. People looking for more in-depth research will go to the Fed article.

FYI- in the US, shares of Fed Reserve branches are held by member banks. This is by law. The shares are non-tradable, carry no voting authorty, and pay a paltry dividend (which is partial compensation for the fact that Fed pays no interest on member banks' deposits). The "owners" of CBanks have no authority over the exercise of monetary policy, since the authority to exercise policy is explicitly granted to monetary authorites by legislative bodies. That authority can easily be revoked if the Bank oversteps its bounds (say, by promoting the interest of its shadowy 'owners').

Per your post above, I'm going to "just give the PR perspective" and revert your edits. Feco 18:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List

I think the list of currencies should be removed, since there is the list of circulating currencies article. Zntrip 20:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to make the same point. Since no one has commented, I'll make the change. Mom2jandk 03:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There is information in the list of currencies I have just reinstated on this page that is not in the separate list of circulating currencies page. This information is also easier to find on the currency page. Lack of comments to the contrary cannot be taken as consent.
Dove1950 13:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought that if the List of circulating currencies is outsourced, then the List of historic currencies should be, too. Generally, I'm not opposed to keeping it in the article here. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 14:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that it's either both lists here or neither. My vote's for both staying put, especially after the work done to tidy them up, for which thanks are due.
Dove1950 17:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to step on any toes. My thought was that if (basically) the same list was in two places at once, it would be likely that at some point the lists would be inconsistent. I see that they are organized differently. Perhaps though, it would be helpful to put a link to List of circulating currencies on this page with a description of how they're different? Mom2jandk 21:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No harm done, I'm sure. Yeah, that should work; after all, the lists here are organized by the currencies' names, while the list at List of circulating currencies is organized by country. Oh, and thanks for the thanks, Dove. Thanks to you, too. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What about pulling the lists out as separate list pages? It seems more appropriate to me to not have a list embedded in a page. I'm sure there are users who don't know that these lists exists because they haven't read the currency page. The lists could be named "List of circulating currencies by denomination" and "<same> by country" and "List of historical currencies" or "List of obsolete currencies". I also believe that List of circulating currencies should be renamed to "List of circulating currencies" since the current name seems to imply that it's a complete list. I have brought this up at talk:List of circulating currencies#rename? if you care to comment. It came up because I'd like to create a complete list containing current and historical and I'd like to call it "List of currencies". I'm not going to actually do anything this time without talking first though :) Mom2jandk 21:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to have such a list but this probably ought to augment rather than replace what we already have, which I consider to be fairly user friendly.
Dove1950 15:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I just updated the links in everyone's comments to point to List of circulating currencies instead of List of currencies. For now, there's a redirect, but I intend to put up a new List of currencies article which contains circulating and historic currencies soon. Ingrid 05:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

German Mark

We have a problem here, clearly. There are at least five different German marks: the original (split in Wikipedia into Gold mark and Papiermark), the Rentenmark, the Reichsmark, the Deutsche Mark and the East German mark (originally also called the Deutsche Mark). I conceed that, on the currency, Deutsche Mark is written as two words. The problem is that an article entitled "German mark" should deal either with the original mark only (since this was the only one actually called "mark") or with all these separate currencies. The Deutsche Mark was a specific kind of mark, the name being used to separate this mark from the earlier Reichsmark. Whilst I think it's OK to have the Deutsche Mark article called "German Mark", this currency ought to be called Deutsche Mark within the text of all articles, to prevent confusion with earlier currencies. Having said that, it will also need to be made clear that Deutsche Mark initially applied to both the FRG and GDR's currencies. This is not about introducing a little bit of the German language into the English language Wikipedia but about clarity and precission. We need to find a concensus here before we start hacking about articles once more.
Dove1950 17:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

To match the style of other currencies, it should really be German X. I was all set to argue that German deutsche mark didn't make sense and was redundant until I looked at the coins. The denomination is "deutsche mark", not just "mark" (on some coins). So, although I think it sounds redundant, I think it's most consistent to use "German deutsche mark" as the title, and "deutsche mark" in the text where German is obvious. Now as far as FRG vs GDR, I've mentioned that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#More move discussion. It seems biased to me that we list East German mark but the "West German mark" is just German mark (for now anyway). I'm going to add a link there back to here and a suggestion that German mark should be German deutsche mark. Let's finish this discussion there so that other Numismatics project members can comment if they want to. Mom2jandk 21:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. Current style is to use English demonym, followed by local currency name. That the short name of the German mark in German happens to include the local demonym is of no consequence to us; I can agree with calling it deutsche Mark (with non-capitalized "deutsche") in the article, though. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

To me, it seems analogous to the German reichsmark which on some coins is just "mark", on others "Reichs<next line>mark". Mom2jandk 21:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The "English demonym" is/was Deutsche Mark. That's how the currency was refered to. That a translation of this name is "German mark" is all well and good but the name in both English and German was Deutsche Mark. How we deal with the capitalization is another matter. There seems to be a concerted campaign against capitals in Wikipedia. The problem is that a German noun is always capitallized. As Deutsche Mark was a single noun (i.e., not a mark from Germany but the German mark) both words are capitalized in German. Take a look at the German language Wikipedia [2]. The point here is to put down a marker that style must be correct as well as consistent.
Dove1950 15:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

While you are correct as far as the capitalization of Deutsche Mark in German is concerned (sorry, must've been half asleep when I negated you on that), the reasons you give are wrong: Deutsche Mark is not a "single noun". Deutsche is still an adjective, of course. What is the case, however, is that Deutsche Mark is a fixed phrase, just like the Union der Sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken, and that's why the adjectives are capitalized (just like in titles and headings).

What I'd propose is that we use German mark as the article title, and Deutsche Mark (with italics, I'd say, though I won't change it if you prefer to write it in standard typeface) in the article body. 's that alright? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm okay with anything that's consistent. I (obviously) don't know much about German, or historical currencies. I'm great at being a stickler for details (also obviously :). Anyway, does anyone know how the usage of "Deutsche Mark" in English and German relates to the use of "Reichsmark"? Their use on the coins seems comparable to me. Should we capitalize/italicize Reichsmark? What about the other German currencies? Do we need to find out capitalization rules for other languages whose denominations we're talking about? Could get to be a major mess!

As far as general style, yet another thing I want to bring up at the Numismatics style guide but haven't gotten around to, is whether to italicize currency names (I'm not familiar with the word "demonym" by the way -- does it mean denomination?). Generally, foreign words are italicized, but foreign loan words (words which started out foreign but are now English) are not. I guess that means that some should be italicized, and some should not, which does not appeal to me -- I'd rather have one rule for all.

Just to add another issue, it has been proposed (by me, but I can't remember where) that it's biased to separate the East German mark from the German mark/Deutsche Mark and not have an article for the West German mark. I'm curious to know what you think about that, Dove. Ingrid 02:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Chinese yuan

At present we have one article entitled Renminbi to which Chinese yuan links and another entitled yuan which doesn't have much in it. Current style suggests that we should have a single article entitled "Chinese yuan" encompasing all Chinese yuans, or split the Renminbi yuan off (to "Chinese renminbi yuan") and keep "Chinese yuan" for all earlier such currencies.
Preferences?
Dove1950 20:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Such an unnecessary redundancy

Why is there a section "Historical currencies" when there is an article List of historical currencies. This is absurd. --Chochopk 13:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That page was created because someone had deleted all the present currencies listed here and was intended to tidy things up. However, it was decided that deleting the list of present currencies was a bad idea (as List of currencies is formatted very differently) and consequently this article was reverted, without List of historical currencies being deleted. If you find the situation absurd, please delete List of historical currencies and leave the list this article.
Dove1950 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Historical Currencies

A user called syrthiss has deleted the Historical currencies category and replaced it with "Modern obselete currencies". Does anyone know how to undo this vandalism?

I thought that was part of the recategorization. He did a lot last night. said it was from the CfD about recat, Historical, Euro, Americas, everything. Joe I 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Recategorization is all well and good when it doesn't create something with the silly name of "Modern obselete currencies". What's "modern"? When do we put a currency in "Ancient obselete currencies". Furthermore, where was this recategorization discussed?
Dove1950 21:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

New Definition of Currency

I would like to offer new definitions - perhaps inserted in a new section called "Other Definitions"

Currency: That which circulates as a medium of exchange; anything that is in immediate, continuous and widespread use as money.

Money: A psychological creation; a concept; the mental image of that which is used as a medium of exchange.

Taken from the Nesara Institute.

inigmatus 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Lists

Why are there lists of currencies on this page? There are already individual pages for them. – Zntrip 03:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, should just make a see also to relevent lists. Joe I 03:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this suggestion was acted upon, generating a mess. I've now put all the currencies that used to be listed in this article in List of currencies. Given that some has time passed, there may be new currency articles that are not in List of currencies. It would be helpful if those writing such articles could check the list.
Dove1950 14:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Numismatics Template

Why doesn't this article use the Numismatics template? Should it be added? I'd suggest that the Exchange Rate template could be moved further down the page. - N1h1l 13:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Having gotten no feedback, I decided to go ahead and swap in the numismatics template, which seems more appropriate. The exhange rate template really doesn't seem to belong here, although I wouldn't object to someone putting it in lower on the page. - N1h1l 14:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not "World Wide View" in Legal tender era section

This section seems to shift in tone and examples to an English or American point of view. Among other things, it uses the quote "all debts public and private". Views from more economies or a a clarification of where this quote comes from is desireable. Davidsv (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed this to a world wide view tag instead of neutrality. Davidsv (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

lol money

money lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.121.32 (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

…Knowing the Value of a Currency is an Economical Standard,Though sometimes it isn't. As for a Currency realy isn't a Currency if it is Operated in a manner that can not be recognised as of the final state of circulation,wich has some question to it. 4:44 p.m. e.s.t.David George DeLancey (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Some editors and I are having trouble getting our heads around the exact nature of the Gibraltar Pound vs the British Pound - can anyone help at Talk:Gibraltar? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Subdivisions

I suggest noting at the end of the beginning of the page a little bit more about subdivisions other than 1:100. There are cases of 1:10 & 1:1000, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_currencies. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Salt/salary

What about salt? It is widely known that salt has been used as currency (whence the word salary); yet this is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Inquiring minds want to know!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.244.69 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't trust "widely known." While Roman legionnaires were paid an amount of salt in addition to their cash salary, at certain times, it certainly wasn't currency. If you have a citation that salt was used as currency somewhere, please do add it. --01:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Jon of All Trades (talk)

"Cheques" or "checks"?

The leading paragraph includes this sentence (emphasis mine):

“ The other part of a nation’s money supply consists of money deposited in banks (sometimes called deposit money), ownership of which can be transferred by means of cheques (in English) or checks (in American English), or other forms of money transfer such as credit and debit cards. ”

This is poor style, according to my understanding. One spelling or the other should be chosen, and we shouldn't specify which variety of English it is. (And besides, it's POV to describe "cheque" as English, and "check" as American English. Is American English not really English?)

So, which shall it be? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 00:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The WP article is under Cheque, so just use that spelling and link to it. Jpatokal (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a very poor article

Usually when I encounter grossly misleading misinformation/disinformation on Wikipedia, I find it in articles that are highly specialized. These pages have very few/no experts contributing to them and many wanna-bes and kooks who think they know everything about a subject they've never actually studied. I'm a lawyer and a lot of clueless people have strong opinions on the law.

But this article is so poor that for the first time I feel I have to speak up.

This article is not about something highly specialized that would be of interest to only a tiny fraction of the public. And yet it is as full of misinformation as any I've seen.

This article does not purport to limit its focus on the coin-collecting aspect of currency. It attempts to incorporate the economics of currency. In fact the first two words are "In economics..." Anyone reading (and accepting as true) this article would come away with a gross misunderstanding of the role of currency in economics.

So where to begin? The magnitude of the problems with this article are too overwhelming.

Reading this article is like reading a disorganized collection of "essays" (i.e. illiterate rants by Paul-tards on truther/birther blogs) on how dollars will soon be worthless and we should all hoard gold, guns, and bottled water in anticipation of the coming race war. But I'll also give credit where credit is due - the editors have done a fine job of keeping the article free of SHOUTING, and the spelling and grammar are much better than such "essays".

Expending effort on trying to get this article into shape would be a futile waste of effort. You people will surely resist. And since people like you seem to think that learning what the slave-masters (i.e. economists and academics who are part of the conspiracy to destroy the economy) have to say will just turn you into one of the other mindless "sheeple".

The only thing I can offer to you is to recommend that you learn something - anything - about the money supply and economics before you start to write about what you THINK you know. At the very least please spend 5 minutes looking at this: Money supply. But you won't.

So now that I have that off my chest, I shall resign from my career as a wiki "editor". This lone edit is one too many as it is. FiatcurrencyFTW (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please give at least one useful definition!

The article starts with the definition: "the term currency can refer to a particular currency". How would someone like me understand the concept of currency from a definition: "currency is currency"? But the next part of the first sentence is not much better: "or [can refer] to the coins and banknotes of a particular currency". So what is currency? Is currency = money? Or is currency = cash? New Oxford American Dict. says: "a system of money in general use in a particular country". That still does not tell what is the difference between money and currency. An expert with a well referenced definition could improve this article very much. Timur lenk (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole part about how muslims are behind first banking, debt and credit is missing any reliable source whatsoever. Edit, or mark it as a *rather* unreliable source please..... I have never seen that they are given the credit for the banking system, in most respectable books its always been the italians.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.136.19 (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this phrase good english language?

" At various times countries have either re-stamped foreign coins, or used currency board issuing one note of currency for each note of a foreign government held, as Ecuador currently does." --SvenAERTS (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"... it is thought that ox-hide shaped ingots of copper, produced in Cyprus may have functioned as a currency. ...". An ingot is a block, so we're talking about a block of copper. But in the shape of an ox-hide ? What? Hide=skin and an ox = an animal like a cow. I think it has to be "copper ingots wrapped in ox-hides". Can't we have a picture of these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SvenAERTS (talk • contribs) 23:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As I recall from a visit to Cyprus, the copper was cast into ingots the shape of an animal-skin, because people know how to transport items that shape (the shape of a small stack of hides): two ingots slung over the back of a camel.81.144.234.220 (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

How about mentioning the wooden Tally Stick?

--SvenAERTS (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

How about mentioning the SDR, issued by the IMP as proposed currency?

--SvenAERTS (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

How about mentioning the CER, issued under the UNFCCC and Emission Trading system as proposed currency?

I wonder if the CER's type of CO2e-certificates under the Clean Development Mechanism under the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol can be seen as currencies.  They're backed-up, not by gold but by 1 ton of CO2e that's taken out of the atmosphere. There's a worldwide agreement, they're negotiated over the commonidites exchange market.  What makes it different from other currencies?

--SvenAERTS (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

somalia money

i have a 50 shillings somali money that was dated 1989 i was just wondering what its worth or value is if any —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.8.56.30 (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

currency vs money

Could anyone point me out how different between currency and money? Please clearly give definition if you could. --Octra Bond (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you think the difference is?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Their definitions are obscure. In my language, they are called as the same thing so I can't distinguish into 2 articles like English. It is why I must ask how different they are. I am going to split a Thai article related with both circumstances or I can't do it. --Octra Bond (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My sense is there is not a sharp demarcation between what is considered to be money and what is considered to be currency, but rather the difference is fuzzier. My sense is money is the more general term -- a medium of exchange -- and includes the sense of money as being a number in a bank account which is not necessarily a physical thing. Currency, in contrast, has more of a sense of money currently in use, with a sense of being the physical holdable types of money -- gold, coins, paper notes, silver dollars and euro coins -- which circulates, which is used today. Like, you wouldn't think of the money in a bank account as being "currency", and you wouldn't tell someone, for example, that you have "$488 of currency in the bank", but rather, more like stored money. But you could describe pennies or shillings or euro coins as both "money" or "currency", so I'm thinking money is the broader term overall. But each term has other meanings and, like all terms in languages, keeps changing with the times, so I suppose it's hard to know exactly which definition of "money" or "currency" is, well, current. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:A print from 1845 shows cowry shells being used as money by an Arab trader.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:A print from 1845 shows cowry shells being used as money by an Arab trader.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:A print from 1845 shows cowry shells being used as money by an Arab trader.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Redaction

Some apparently poorly educated individual was apparently on a rant about fiat money which I redacted in the second ¶ In particular it's especially stupid and false to say that money only gets value by govt. fiat. If that were true, poor countries could simply declare themselves rich. Lycurgus (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

It has been proposed that Money be merged with this article.

• Comment Money should be the article that usurps Currency due to the latter just being a formal synonym that refers to formalized money. --Hopkinsenior (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The topics are different and distinct. One is whatever is used (including electronic money) to avoid barter when trading. The other are physical objects used to represent monetary value. LK (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment How are the actual articles distinct at all though? They both have an identical starting summary, nearly identical content. Again, if there is any actual difference, it's so tiny that it doesn't warrant seperate articles; at least not at this moment.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support "In economics, currency are objects that are generally accepted as a medium of exchange." = "Money is any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given socio-economic context or country." If there is a difference, it's so miniscule that it doesn't warrant nearly identical articles. They both refer to the same type of object. I have a feeling there is a POV issue here. --Hopkinsenior (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Kindly Assume Good Faith. I am merely describing what the text book definition is. Money is a concept, currency are objects that are sometimes used as money. The distinction here is similar to the difference between weapon and knife, and between Archery and Bow (weapon). And please, before making such a major change, do please do some research first, as in reading a 1st year undergraduate textbook on economics, where the distinction is made clear. LK (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Here are the summaries of both articles to compare. A source might claim a distinct difference but the articles currenctly do not. If currency is sometimes used as something besides money, that is not reason enough to have a separate article for it because it is still generally considered money. As per MOS, these should be able to adequately describe the contents of the each article. You judge how similar they are: --Hopkinsenior (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Additionally, as for weapon and knife, Archery and Bow (weapon), these are all written as distinct articles with little similarity. As for these articles, they contain nearly the same content. What little distinction that is in Currency might only comprise of a single section in Money. To argue otherwise is to argue that Money is subordinate to Currency, when it isn't. --Hopkinsenior (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Could you please provide an example of money that is not currency then? Secobi (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Any difference between money and currency is a legal arbitration since they are evidently linguistically synonymous. Intuitively I see no practical benefit or empirical basis to make these distinct, and there is absolutely no reason to entertain any contemporary distinction on things of a insubstantial nature whether or not it be branded academic if no legal basis is provided. Secobi (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - If this needs to be redirected anywhere, the redirect should be to banknote not money. Let's let the smoke clear at AFD before anybody gets too fired up about this; I have a hunch that redirecting this piece out of existence is a likely outcome... In any event "coins and currency" is the numismatic phrase, with the latter connoting banknotes. Money is much bigger, including primitive money, coins, currency, tokens, scrip, credit cards, electronic fund transfer, electronic deposit balances in banks, and so on. The fact that this currency piece has been overwritten to include many things that are not forms of currency, but are in fact forms of tender shouldn't cause a wrong redirect to be placed here... Carrite (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Article Comparison

"Money is any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given socio-economic context or country. The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally in the past, a standard of deferred payment. Any kind of object or secure verifiable record that fulfills these functions can serve as money.

Money is historically an emergent market phenomena establishing a commodity money, but nearly all contemporary money systems are based on fiat money. Fiat money is without intrinsic use value as a physical commodity, and derives its value by being declared by a government to be legal tender; that is, it must be accepted as a form of payment within the boundaries of the country, for "all debts, public and private".

The money supply of a country consists of currency (banknotes and coins) and bank money (the balance held in checking accounts and savings accounts). Bank money usually forms by far the largest part of the money supply. "

and

"In economics, currency are objects that are generally accepted as a medium of exchange. These are usually the coins and banknotes of a particular government, which comprise the physical aspects of a nation's money supply. The other part of a nation's money supply consists of bank deposits (sometimes called deposit money), ownership of which can be transferred by means of cheques, debit cards, or other forms of money transfer. Deposit money and currency are money in the sense that both are acceptable as a means of payment.

Direct exchange of commodities such as precious metals, furs, grain, etc. in early human societies led to the first money proper in early civilizations. Until modern times, precious metals such as gold or silver typically were used to retain the commodity nature of the store of value function of money. However, nearly all contemporary monetary systems are based on fiat money. Usually, a government declares its currency (including notes and coins issued by the central bank) to be legal tender, making it unlawful to not accept it as a means of repayment for all debts, public and private. In major modern economies such as those of the United States or the Euro Zone, most money is electronic, but the "currency" of these polities may, depending on context, include all money or just specie (i.e., various physical representations of money)."

Random observer

Have "money" as the main article, then have a separate article for "currency" called "currency-academic definition" or something appropriately titled for wikipedia, at the start of the "money" article write down clear definitions for both "currency" and "money" and say something like "commonly these 2 words are used interchangeably but in academia they have strict definitions and it's important to make the distinction", then provide the link to the article for "currency-academic definition" which explains the stricter academic definition of currency.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/money?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/currency?s=t

Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a text book, people pick up an encyclopedia to look up something specific, not to learn every tiny technical detail about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.40.89 (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a textbook doesn't mean that we shouldn't use the same definition for things as they are in textbooks. It just means that we shouldn't have pedagogical flourishes, like extended examples, worksheets and problems for the reader. We always use the academic definition for a word if one exists. E.g. we don't have Acceleration not Acceleration(textbook version); and Photon, not Photon(academic version). In any case, this is not a trivial academic distinction. The larger part of the money supply is in bank accounts that pay interest. Currency doesn't pay interest. Currency is the only thing that is 'taxed' by the inflation tax. This is not a trivial distinction. LK (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The articles, as they stand, make little to no distinction and should be merged as such.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, currency is a precise term of money but it is still money and any distinctions are so minor they can be made clear in a section in the money article. This is not worth duplicating content over two articles. Feel free to refute the claim that the content covered in both Money and Currency is identical.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The claim can be refuted easily by examining the two articles, which have little in common but the photographs! (which are only similar due to the fact that it is very hard to illustrate the largest part of money that is intangible 1's and 0's in computers, and isn't currency). Have you actually READ the two articles? You're embarassing yourself. Why don't you do so and actually learn something? Money is what is in your bank account, while currency is what's in your pocket. That don't at all overlap, except in your pocket. But they don't even overlap very much in your life, very likely. Unless you have no credit and don't use checks, plastic, or a bank. Which is possible. But even if so, the world isn't you. SBHarris 05:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The money in my pocket is identical to what is in the bank in terms of value aqnd utility. Currency is traded digitally all the time and is considered just the same as physical currency, in terms of trading price and acceptance. Again, a simple difference in medium of what is still money doesn't justify a huge rift in identical content. The formalized definition of currency is well-covered in Money and can be covered even further in that article just as well. Since your whole argument rests on currency not being digital, your point is moot because Forex proves otherwise and the utility of both subjects is exactly identical. Frivolous academic culture and pedantry have no bearing on Wikipedia's content. --Hopkinsenior (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, does anyone have reliable, secondary sources saying that currency can only be physical objects? This article has none.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as there is little to nothing in this article worth merging due to little citation, I am just going forward with a deletion.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Proposing Deletion

This article is not encyclopedia and consists of mostly original research. It has no citations and most of its content is covered in Money which just makes it a content fork, which is another qualifier for deletion.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction: Forex does not use currency by this article's definition.

Forex consists mostly of electronic trading which is technically not currency by this article's definition which says it can only be physical objects.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, this article mentions Bitcoin as a currency when it is not, generally, a physical object. --Hopkinsenior (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Không nên dùng cụm từ "tiền tệ" nên thay bằng cụm từ "đồng tiền" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.3.82.223 (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Definition and dab problem

See here for discussion. It has become clear to me that we are simply embroiled in a problem with a word that has many meanings, even within economics. The solution is not merging or deleting but merely intelligent use of the currency dab page. The present currency article should probably wind up containing info not covered in banknote, coin, and money. That info is the forex-related info on currency systems. Whether we then call that article currency, currency systems, or currency (system), is a matter of taste. All get the job done. SBHarris 22:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree in principle, but how do we deal with all the links from articles that mention currency and coin? It would be a bit of a hassle to trace all those article and pipe to banknote. Is there a bot or something that can do it? LK (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Dogecoin

"Distinct from centrally controlled government-issued currencies, private decentralized trust networks support alternative currencies such as Dogecoin, as well as branded currencies, for example 'obligation' based stores of value, such as quasi-regulated BarterCard, Loyalty Points (Credit Cards, Airlines) or Game-Credits (MMO games) that are based on reputation of commercial products, or highly regulated 'asset backed' 'alternative currencies' such as mobile-money schemes like MPESA (called E-Money Issuance).[9] Currency may be Internet-based and digital, for instance, Dogecoin and not tied to any specific country, or the IMF's SDR that is based on a basket of currencies (and assets held)."

Why is this considered spam? Dogecoin is a real crypto currency that is used more than bitcoin, it has every right to be mentioned here as bitcoin.

A mention of Bitcoin as an example is enough for the article. Enivid (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

use of Pound

There is a line "even the pound is used in a dozen countries, all with wildly varying values" with a "dubious" tag. This is true, but misleading. There are 10 or 12 countries which historically have been British colonies or Crown dependencies which have currencies denominated in pounds, all of which are legally tied to the pound sterling (and thus have the same value). There are also 5 countries (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, and South Sudan) which denominate their currencies in pounds, but have no tie to the pound sterling (the history behind this is that, in the 19th century when Britain had effective control of Egypt, the Egyptian government introduced a new currency tied to the pound sterling, and called it the pound. When the Ottoman empire collapsed, Egyptian pounds became the defacto currency in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Sudan; each eventually introduced it's own currency but kept the name "pound". All of these currencies lost their tie to the pound sterling many years ago, and now, as the article suggests, "vary wildly"). I see no easy way to summarize that into one line to fit the article, and suggest the line in question be removed.

Currency Converter Financial Blog

Is it possible to add currency converter site http://currency.wiki as an additional citation to this article http://currency.wiki/finance/11-01-14/top-12-traded-currencies on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency as "Top 12 Traded Currencies"? Thank you, Aweb118 (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be treated as promotion. Besides, there already is a proper citation for the data.Enivid (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I've asked is because it was asking for additional citation for verification as shown here http://awesomescreenshot.com/04f4lm3302 but I do appreciate your fast response.

Best regards! Aweb118 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it needs more citations but mainly for the History section. Enivid (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Major World Payments Currencies monthly or yearly?

The List of Major World Payments Currencies, has been done for each Jan since 2012, but now it include both Jan a15 and Feb 15. Yearly is probably enough?

If done monthly a separate page might be better? Jonpatterns (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite

Does it still apply that this does not comply with the standards and what needs to be done aside from the citations . This is a vital article for humanity in my opinion. WikiImprovment78 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Digital Currency reference in the lede

(I have moved tThis discussion here from my Talk page because it is relevant here.) Enivid (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Envid,

I reverted your edit of my edit to the Currency article. Examples of digital currencies include cryptocurrencies, virtual currencies, central bank digital currencies and e-Cash. The referenced sources apply to these definitions interchangeably. Frankly, I am surprised you reverted my change without any alternative reference. Digital currency article consistently uses these terms interchangeably. The Currency article is specific to actual currency, meaning the legal tender, or at the very least, the distinction must be made. Please clarify the reason for your edits. Thanks. Litesand (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit because it assumes that 'digital currency' equals 'cryptocurrency', which, according to the consensus reached in the Digital currency article, isn't so. Cryptocurrency is a subset of digital currency. Moreover, the cryptocurrency itself is discussed in the Currency#Alternative_currencies. If you want to mention warnings about its use, that section is the proper place for that - not the lede that doesn't even mention cryptocurrency separately. Enivid (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

If the main body of the currency article mentions digital currency the information becomes relevant. In the modern society governments and governments alone have the authority to issue actual currency. The article now references a product that has no legal relationship between to currency, or if it does, the explanation must bed added to avoid confusion. The statement may need to be clarified and expanded, but by all means, not deleted. Sources I mentioned use "digital currencies" "cryptocurrencies" and "virtual currencies" interchangeably. Please feel free to add references and examples of actual legal digital currencies issued by a central banks - this will clarify the distinction you are looking to make.Litesand (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Digital currency has been around before cryptocurrency. The mention that DC exists is appropriate for the lede. The warnings about cryptocurrency are not - there is a separate section on that rather narrow subtopic. Before your edit, the lede of the Currency article didn't mention cryptocurrency at all, which is right as the topics are only tangentially related. Your Library of Congress link states that some jurisdictions define cryptocurrencies as DC, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should be narrowing down the definition of DC to crypto. I won't make any more edits of your addition to that paragraph, but I recommend moving it from the lede to the Alternative currencies section. Thank you! Enivid (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The distinction between the two is about whether or not the digital currency is government-sponsored. Tale.Spin (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Money

A currency is a standardization of money in any form, in use or circulation as a medium of exchange, for example banknotes and coins. A more general definition is that a currency is a system of money in common use within a specific environment over time, especially for people in a nation state. Under this definition, the British Pound Sterling (£), euros (€), Japanese yen (¥), and U.S. dollars (US$) are examples of (government-issued) fiat currencies. Currencies may act as stores of value and be traded between nations in foreign exchange markets, which determine the relative values of the different currencies. Currencies in this sense are either chosen by users or decreed by governments, and each type has limited boundaries of acceptance; i.e., legal tender laws may require a particular unit of account for payments to government agencies.

Other definitions of the term "currency" appear in the respective synonymous articles: banknote, coin, and money. This article uses the definition which focuses on the currency systems of countries.

One can classify currencies into three monetary systems: fiat money, commodity money, and representative money, depending on what guarantees a currency's value (the economy at large vs. the government's physical metal reserves). Some currencies function as legal tender in certain jurisdictions, or for specific purposes, such as payment to a government (taxes), or government agencies (fees, fines). Others simply get traded for their economic value.

Digital currency has arisen with the popularity of computers and the Internet. Whether government-backed digital notes and coins (such as the digital renminbi in China, for example) will be successfully developed and utilized remains dubious. Decentralized digital currencies, such as cryptocurrencies, are different because they are not issued by a government monetary authority; specifically, bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency and leader in terms of market capitalization, has a fixed supply and is therefore ostensibly deflationary. Many warnings issued by various countries note the opportunities that cryptocurrencies create for illegal activities such as scams, ransomware, money laundering and terrorism. In 2014, the United States IRS issued a statement explaining that virtual currency is treated as property for Federal income-tax purposes, and it provide examples of how long-standing tax principles applicable to transactions involving property apply to virtual currency. Riyadalam (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

What is the currency

India Paris South Africa Uae Uae India Uae India India Germany South Africa India Uae South Africa India Singapore Uae China India India South Africa South Africa India Uk South Africa South Africa India India China Uae India South Africa India China China China Lubumbashi Democratic Republic Of Congo, Drc India India India India Uae India India South Africa Uae India Tunisia Dubai India India India India India India South Africa Uae Zambia China India India India China Trukey South Africa India Singapore Uae Uk Uae Uk South Africa Ghana Uae China China China 41.159.147.219 (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Abbreviations and codes

There is currently an... issue.., developing at pound sterling where a stalemate exists over what codes and abbreviations are appropriate to mention. Currently the article claims that the abbreviation "STG" is exclusively "historical" and "obsolescent", despite current use as an RTGS and clearing code and use as an abbreviation cited by the World Bank's style guide (in the form of "£ stg"), and use by Reuters and FOREX pages of banks (the Central Bank of Kenya cites the currency as "STG POUND"). The user opposing STG's mention seems to think only ISO 4217 codes can be mentioned and not abbreviations or other coding standards, because apparently the existence of a code format negates all other notation. The style guides pound sterling currently cites argue against reliance on ISO codes because they can be confusing to lay persons.

Speaking personally, many of these codes are too similar to actual abbreviations; sterling's ISO code does not look remotely like an abbreviation of the currency name and my brain interprets it as "GDP", so it is quite annoying to see.

Just looking for alternative points of view on the matter. OurangMedan (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Etherium

It’s says etherium is validated by all the users but is in fact validated by people with the most etherium Daverooster (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

images background removrs

combine two images in to one i will removr images back ground 39.41.139.174 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it is not clear what you mean, but the article had two instances of the AIGA logo so I have replaced the second one with a Bureau de Change rates board. If that is not what you meant, you will need to explain more. Google Translate may be able to provide a clearer translation of your own language. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

"Physical currency" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Physical currency has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 22 § Physical currency until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Money

• The below category should be added.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Money

Kenixkil (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article isn't protected, so you can proceed by adding the category on your own. Vgbyp (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)