Wikivoyage talk:Currency

Archived discussions Wikivoyage talk:Currency/Archive 2007-2010 Wikivoyage talk:Currency/Archive 2011-2013 Wikivoyage talk:Currency/Archive 2014-2016 Wikivoyage talk:Currency/Archive 2017-2018

Belarusian ruble

I visited this country last month and have been using this formatting (BYN100) while adding prices to Belarus articles. Belarusian ruble isn't on the list so I borrowed Russian formatting (RUB100) as a guide since both use rubles. Are there any oppositions to me adding Belarus' currency formatting to the list? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What is the most common way of expressing the currency that you've seen in symbols or Latin letters? That's what we should use. We wouldn't use Cyrillic letters, per WV:$, but we would avoid using the ISO, unless that is what travellers would normally see. There are a lot of countries where we just spell out the currency name instead of using a symbol, e.g. Thailand, Vietnam, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Armenia, Azerbaijan. Ground Zero (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, everywhere is written in Russian (so 1 рубль for 1 ruble). The only time I saw Latin letters for currency was at the restaurant in an American hotel chain, and it says "10.00 BYN". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

So it sounds like the "100 rubles" format would be best. If you're going to Russia, too, maybe you could report back on what you see there (is anyone using the ₱ symbol?) I kind of suspect that the "RUB100" format dates from a time long ago when there was one editor trying to push ISO codes for all currencies, instead of what travellers will see, but I don't remember from my last trip there 14 years ago. Ground Zero (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I already returned home and I don't think Russia is on my list for next little while. I do agree that "100 rubles" is what locals would say, but I fear that it can be confusing because readers could mix up with Russian rubles (which is what everyone think of when "ruble" is mentioned because it's more widely circulated). Let's see what others chime in and have to say on this topic. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

We do use "$" in Canadian articles as the accepted norm (and Australia, NZ, Singapore....) It can be clarified by specifying Belarusian rubles the first time in each article. Linking in this way can be useful as it links the reader to exchange rates: 100 Belarusian rubles. Ground Zero (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: Here's a question. How come Russia uses "RUB100" instead of "100 rubles"? I would imagine most people would people would connect rubles to Russia rather than "RUB". The logic seems a little backwards if we mandate rubles as the notation for Belarus currency but RUB for Russia. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: I added that in March 2017 "to indicate the format that Wikipedia articles are generally using now". I haven't been to Russia since 2005, so I don't know what travellers should expect to see in shops and restaurants now. (I don't remember what was commonly used then, either.) What we commonly use in Russia articles is not a good basis for what we should use in Russia articles, let alone what we should use in Belarus articles. At Talk:Russia, I will ask people who've been to Russia if what they see most commonly is "руб", "рубль" or "РУБ", because I suspect that whatever are using is wrong. The Wikipedia article on the w: Russian ruble says that the symbol is "₽, руб / р. (colloquially)". We use £ for the UK pound, which is the best-known pound, but not for the Egyptian pound because £ isn't used in Egypt. Ground Zero (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: we haven't had input from any other users. What are your thoughts now? I still don't want to use the ISO code as it seems overly formal to me, and don't think we should use it if it isn't used there. Ground Zero (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: I think the country-level page (Belarus) should mention Belarusian rubles in the first instance and wherever makes sense. Cities and town pages can probably get by with just "rubles". Any potential source of confusing (e.g. border towns between Russia/Belarus or Belarus/European country) should be spelled out each time. How does it sound? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Ranges

Write price ranges using a single currency symbol and a single dash with no spaces, e.g. Dinner: €10–20

I personally find "€10–20" visually unappealing and syntactically irksome ("10 euros and 20 what, exactly?). Plus, there's always a chance, at least when using a shorter dash, that "€10-20" is mistaken for €10.20 by speedy readers.

In full knowledge that this is the worst set of arguments possible, I humbly submit a proposed amendment thusly:

Write price ranges using a currency symbol accompanying each unit and a single dash with no spaces, e.g. Dinner: €10–€20

It just looks better, reads better, and is unambiguous. In my opinion, at least.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't buy the ambiguity argument. Are there any countries that use the hyphen as a decimal place?

I find "€10–€20" to be awkward and ugly. I prefer the current format.

If it is going to be changed, then I hope that there is a plan to run a bot to change instances of the old format. Otherwise, all we'd really being doing is making most of our listings offside of the formatting policy. I don't think that's good. Ground Zero (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it's a personal preference, as is yours. We'll just see what people think, if there's interest in changing it, then great, if not we'll stick to the status quo, and I'll continue to stew about it privately 😊 --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I also prefer TT!'s proposed format. No need to mandate one or the other, though; we could allow either, as long as usage on a given page is consistent. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 00:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

We adopt consistent formats to make it easier for travellers to find the information they need. I don't think catering to editors' preferences is consistent with putting the traveller first. I can live with whichever format the consensus prefers, but I really have a problem with changing the format without a plan to change our articles to reflect the new format. Doing it manually is such a massive job that it will never happen. I don't see TT's format very often, so this proposal, so far, would just make the large majority of listings violate the Manual of Style. That is not going to make Wikivoyage better. Without an automated solution, the status quo has a very strong advantage for readers and for the project by virtue of being what we are doing already. Ground Zero (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't think of it as an "old" and "new" format, or a choice between them, but rather allowing an extra one, so there's no worry with regards to changing existing pages. Also, I really don't think this is a ttcf issue, nor does it really reflect on making it easier or harder to find information. It's just an extra currency symbol...most readers probably won't notice. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 01:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion started with a concern about ambiguity if the current format, which I don't agree with. But if we start using €40-50 in some articles and €40-€50 in others, then I think we're creating ambiguity. Giving editors choice does not address TT's concerns about the current format. In [Wikivoyage_talk:Time_and_date_formats#Opens_and_closes_in_the_afternoon this recent discussion], a decision was made to prefer "1-4PM" over "1PM-4PM". That format, and the current range format, avoid repetition, and so are more concise. Ground Zero (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright, if you insist. I'm not really concerned about ambiguity; I just think the other way looks nicer. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not insisting -- it's not up to me alone. I'm just trying to raise what I think are valid concerns. Ground Zero (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Philippine peso

There is a discussion here about whether to use P or ₱. Other views would be welcome. Ground Zero (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan dollars

I would just like to ask, why did WV decide that for Taiwan, prices should be listed using "NT$" instead of just "$"? Isn't it convention here that if you just see a "$" sign for a dollar-using country, you can assume it is the local currency and not US$. For instance, we don't write "HK$1" in our Hong Kong article, since "$1" is assumed to be one Hong Kong dollar, so I don't see why we need to be different for Taiwan. The dog2 (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It was decided here. Generally I think that local use is more useful for readers, so it is a better guide for us than consistency across articles. I haven't been to Taiwan yet, so I don't know, but Wikipedia is probably not wrong. Ground Zero (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that, but I'll respond here since that's a very old thread. I've been to Taiwan, and over there, if you see a "$" sign without any other initials, you can be pretty sure they are referring to NT$ and not to US$. It is very rare to see prices advertised in US$ even at the airport. Both $ and NT$ commonly appear in Taiwanese price tags, but I wasn't there long enough to give a fair assessment on which format is more common. Sometimes, you won't even see the $ sign, and they will just denote the price using numbers and the Chinese character for the currency. In fact, it is not uncommon for the currency unit to just be completely dropped. The dog2 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I have barely seen a dollar sign when I was there. I made a collection of all pictures with a currency symbol that I could find from my Taiwan trip, here: Commons:Category:Taiwan Currency ... and most use 元, one was NT $.

Furthermore, I checked some accommodation websites, I found NTD, NT, NT $, and of course 元, but never $. Also, from the WV country page it seems 新臺幣 means New Taiwanese Dollar aka NTD aka NT$.

Hence, using $ would certainly be worse than what we have now with NT$. However, having considered this topic, I am now actually more in favor of using 100元 instead of NT$100. So, should we have a discussion about this option?

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

If you do a Wikimedia commons search for "Taiwan price tag", you can see some with just $ ([1], some of which are quite recent. But yes, I definitely agree that 100元 or just 100 is more common than either $100 or NT$100. As I previously mentioned though, if you're in Taiwan and just see $, you can pretty much assume it refers to NT$, not U.S. dollars, Australian dollars or any other dollar currencies. If it was U.S. dollars or Australian dollars, they will specify (eg. US$, A$). The dog2 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Mmmhh, the amount of $ signs is really limited in your example. I found many more 元 and no $ in the pictures of just one holiday. Maybe it changed recently, but I really feel that $ would be the worst currency denotation we could use for Taiwan. But we should probably move forward switching to 元. Ceever (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

We have generally avoid symbols that would not be familiar to English-speaking readers, like 元, and have chosen to use "baht" instead of ฿, but I don't really know why we've taken that approach. I suppose that using familiar symbols/words is easier for armchair travellers, but it contradicts our general approach of using the symbol that travellers are most likely to see in the country. Further, we violated the "familiar" principle in accepting "грн" for Ukraine, and I have proposed using "руб" for Russia. Does anyone know how to add "元" and "руб" to the Wiki markup currency line at the bottom of the edit screen? Ground Zero (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I see what you did there ... ;-)

Well, from the discussion on Ukraine, we can edit the symbols at MediaWiki:Edittools - I do not have permissions though. Maybe it would make sense to also include a two letter country code here, because all those currency symbols become more and more confusing.

My suggestion would be: EU: € — CZ: Kč — UK: £ — UA: грн ... etc.

On Taiwan, should we go with NT$ for the moment, unless someone is willing to change everything to 元? (Though, the questions remains, if we go with 元, whether to use 100元 or 100 元.)

Cheers Ceever (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In the Japan article, we use ¥100 instead of 100円 even though you often see the latter when you go there, so I don't think using just "$" in the Taiwan article will be confusing, but that's just me. Honestly, I wouldn't mind switching to using ฿ for the Thai baht and ₫ for the Vietnamese dong since those symbols are actually commonly seen when you travel to their respective countries. The dog2 (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

In English-language signage in Japan, ¥100 is used. 100円 is used in Japanese-language signage. Wikivoyage is written for people who speak English as a primary or secondary language. Native Japanese-speakers are not our main audience. Ceever's July 5th post above addressed why NT$ is better than $ effectively. I don't object to ฿ and ₫, but we'd need a broader discussion in the community before doing so (and a specific proposal for that). Ground Zero (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Currency notations moving to different countries' pages?

Swept in from the pub

Anyone knows why other currencies are slowly moving to their respective countries' talk pages? I thought the purpose of policy pages is to have a centralized list of best practices on a single page for reference, not scattered across a dozen or so talk pages for different countries. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the thinking behind that is that you don't want to set out formatting policy in two places, lest they disagree. I don't feel strongly about this, but I think it is more useful to have it on the country talk pages. @Ceever: may have comments on this issue. Ground Zero (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Avoid having 2 discussions in parallel can be achieved by leaving a message at the country's talk page pointing to the discussion taking place. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the country talk page is where editors would look for consensuses agreed upon for that country. It might be that a centralised page was intended first, but it is not very intuitive, I believe.

Also, that page is not really necessary, because we have the country talk page for exactly such purposes. Also, this extra page has no purpose for travellers, it is overload we actually do not need.

Furthermore, a single page with all currencies standards listed serves no practical purpose, because most of the time you will stick with one country when editing, why have everything listed together when each is only relevant to that one country.

Last but not least, we now also have the spelling and time format for that country in one easily found place. Those three belong together for the purpose of informing editors which standards to use for that country. It would be harder to in addition have another page for the time formats and another page for the spelling formats, not to mention one page for all three formats of all countries.

I know this is a little confusing at the moment, because it is not clear where to look at the moment, but this will be a short transition period. Maybe we could add a links on those country's talk pages that do not yet have that format box.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Wikivoyage:Currency is the correct place to document standards. Powers ^(talk) 19:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

For what reason? I'm sorry, but just saying you disagree with a long, multifaceted comment, without elaborating, doesn’t help us further this discussion.

Why not link the information on an article's talk page to the currency page with a clever template, a bit like the currency exchange template? That way, if one changes, so will the other. Or we just remember to change both on the very rare occasion that a format change occurs.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It's standard on Wikimedia wikis to put style information in a central location for ease of finding it and easier comparisons (to detect inconsistencies, gaps, or overlaps). Powers ^(talk) 19:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Putting the notations on the talk pages on individual articles is mainly to remind potential editors what the standard template is. I believe any changed to currency notation are discussed on the Wikivoyage:Currency talk page, and all the relevant talk pages are updated if a consensus is reached. The dog2 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Most changes to currency format have been discussed on the country talk pages over the last 2½ years, but there have been a few discussed on Wikivoyage talk:Currency. That's neither here nor there. I agree with Ceever that it is most helpful for editors to group currency, time and spelling conventions on the country talk page because editors are more like to be doing edits across a country than focussing edits just on currency formats. We can put a link on Wikivoyage talk:Currency to the country talk page, and in many cases have already done so. This is not something we should spend a lot of time on. Ground Zero (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Price notation

Swept in from the pub

There's been a long-running dispute, across a number of articles, regarding how to denote prices that start with a base figure, e.g. 'from $100' or '$100+'. Another editor insists on the first method. However I have found nothing in the manual of style that states the second alternative cannot be used, and indeed it is a commonly-used format not only in print but online. It seems to me that this would be a matter of personal preference – are there any other opinions on this matter? StellarD (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

In some places "$100+" is used to mean "prices from $100 (and up)", in others it's "$100 plus tax". "From" is a short word, so there is no need to use a symbol to replace it. I don't see why this is a big issue. I can try to remember not to make this change in StellarD's articles, but I don't get this being a thing to bring to the pub. Ground Zero (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Does it matter which one we use on a certain article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

We could also use "≥$100" or "$100 and up". When possible, I'd prefer specifying an actual range, because the difference between "$100 to $200" and "$100 to $10,0000" is significant, but I understand that might not always be feasible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has mentioned the potential wording "at least $100." How would people like that one? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

While I wouldn't start an edit war over it, if a range isn't known (as is often the case with hotels), I'd definitely prefer "from $100" instead of "$100+". That usage of "+" has no mathematical or literary basis, and is just sloppy writing. While we do use abbreviations such as days of the week in listings, WV is not so constrained for space like a printed guide that we need to use awkward and potentially unclear symbols instead of a short English word. And there's no reason to use "at least" when "from" is 3 letters and a space shorter and is already perfectly clear. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Why does it need to be one or the other? Unless there's confusion about what's meant, just leave it be. There's such a thing as overstandardization. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I prefer "from $100". I think that "at least $100" has a slight implication of being expensive, and looks odd when used with prices which are a good deal - "the campsite costs at least $5" doesn't look right (but "the hotel costs at least $500" is ok). It is not important, but is better that adjacent listings use the same wording. AlasdairW (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

If the meaning is that there are various prices and the lowest of them is $100, I think "From $100" is best, and "$100 and up" is fine. Whether I would change any other usages would partly depend on how pedantic my mood was at the time, and whether I was aware that the editor who wrote it had a strong preference for it. Nurg (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Currency notations for Thailand and Vietnam

After having a long thought about it, I think we should be using the "฿" symbol for the Thai baht, and the "₫" symbol for the Vietnamese dong. Their respective currencies are most frequently denoted this way on English-language signs, so I don't see why we shouldn't be consistent with other countries' articles and use the local currency symbol. What does everyone think? The dog2 (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been to either country (although I'm planning to go to Vietnam next year), so I can't comment. I don't know what the objection is to using the symbols since we have adopted ₹, ₪, ₩, and others. Ground Zero (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I've been to both countries, what I mentioned in my previous post is exactly what I saw. The dog2 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

On my smart phone I cannot produce the ฿. Even on my laptop I must take several steps before I can produce the ฿. An addition to the listing editor would help for working with the laptop (btw ₹ and ₪ are not available in the listing editor), but not while working with the smart phone. The listing editor is not available on the smart phone. Visiting a place I can think "20 baht for a coffee, that is cheap" and at that moment I would take my phone and put "coffee only 20 baht" at "Price=". Putting "coffee only ฿20" there is something I cannot do, and I would have forgotten about it by the time I'm at my laptop. Walking around in Thailand I see "บาท" or "baht" most times, but "฿" is also frequently used. So, I would prefer not to change baht into ฿. It makes contributing "on the spot" difficult or even impossible. --FredTC (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

As there have been no other comments about the baht but Fred TC's, I think we should abandon the idea of using ฿ if "baht" is more common. For Vietnam, I'll report back in February. Ground Zero (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've been in Vietnam only four days, but so far, it looks to me like there is no standard currency notation. The most common way of showing a price is with the number only, e.g., "100.000", "100k" or "100K". Occasionally I've seen "VND", "vnd", "VNĐ", "vn₫", appended, but not that often. I've seen "₫" used only rarely. I think our current practice of using "dong" is the simplest approach, especially as it is already the most commonly used notation in our articles. Ground Zero (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing countries

This is a list of countries that do not have an agreed-upon standard notation yet. If I have missed some, please let me know.

<Completed>

We can use this as a checklist and cross the countries off once a standard notation is posted on the currency page. Gizza ^(roam) 09:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I think our plan is to post new formats on the country's talk page, isn't it? Ground Zero (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I just came back from Tonga last month. Tongan paʻanga uses $ (thankfully). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: thanks. Can you tell us which clock is most common -- 12-hourvor 24-hour? Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: Didn't really recall particular format was more commonly used. The only evidence I had was communication with the hotel, which used 24-hour in their email. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@DaGizza: what would you think about getting the ball rolling on resolving these by posting draft formatting convention (currency, time, spelling) infoboxes on these cpuntries' talk pages to see if we can get a response? We would use information from Wikipedia and other sources to make our best guess about which formats are appropriate, and hope that someone monitoring the country articles confirms or corrects us. Below is an example I would post at Talk:Algeria. If there is no comment after a month, then I think we implement the proposal. Comments? Ground Zero (talk):

Currency, time and spelling conventions

Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles. Do you agree with these proposals? If you have direct knowledge of what is most commonly used in the country, please let us know.

Formatting and language conventions For articles about Algeria, please use the 24-hour clock to show times, e.g. 09:00-12:00 and 18:00-00:00. Please show prices in this format: DA100 — not DZD 100, 100 DA or 100 dinars. Please use American spelling.

Moving forward

I remembered that when I created and implemented the exchangevrare templates for country articles a few years ago, I researched the symbols used for currencies in order to choose the correct symbols for the templates. So I've implemented the above infobox for a bunch where I can take an informed guess about the time and spelling conventions. In some cases, I've put in on the talk page as a proposal to try to get more feedback. I expect that in some cases I've got it wrong, and i hope that other contributors will correct me. Ground Zero (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Currency templates

I really liked the idea of using special templates for currencies (for example, €5). I borrowed the idea and tried to improve it for Georgian lari:

• the tooltip shows when a price (for a bus ticket or a night in a hotel) was last experienced by user: {{GEL|5|when=23-12-2021}} shows 45 lari
• easy way to show price ranges {{GEL|12|15}}: 12–15 lari
• the tooltip shows converted prices into USD and EUR (!)
• currency rates are taken straight from Wikidata; no need to keep this data on Wikivoyage service pages
• usage of such template allows for easy change of price formatting across all articles with only 1 simple edit.

I would like to listen what you think about broader usage of such templates on Wikivoyage. Soshial (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That's pretty useful in my opinion. If I may suggest, adding GBP might also be useful for our readers in the UK as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

One other thing though, we usually avoid having numerical dates, as it can be ambiguous unless it's in the 2024-12-17 form which should eventually produce 17 December 2024. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Currency rate boxes in country articles

Soshial (or anyone else): is there a way of bringing the wikidata values into the currency conversion boxes that we have in the Money section of each country article? I am planning to update those manually for the first time in 2 years, and it would get great if instead I could replace them by templates that would be updated automatically from Wikidata. Ground Zero (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Glad you asked! I already use Wikidata in the article about Georgia. Here is an example for you: {{#invoke:wd|properties|raw|normal|Q4608|P2284|P38=Q4916}}

• ENTITY: Q4608 (Georgian lari)
• PROPERTY: P2284 (price)
• QUALIFIER FILTER: P38=Q4916 (currency = euro)

RESULT: €0.35631795

Ask away if you have any questions. Soshial (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I just updated the rates for lari, but I’m not sure if I did that correctly though. I updated the values on Wikidata in-place? Then, updated the date property of the template on Wikivoyage. Does that make sense? Or should I‘be created a new entry on Wikidata? Henridv (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Distinction between Nordic currencies?

Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland each has a national currency known as krona/krone, shortened kr (while Finland has the euro). The value of the first three are in the same order of magnitude, with the Icelandic one being an outlier. To avoid confusion for international travellers, many guidebooks and hospitality businesses in these countries write down the respective currency code (SEK, NOK, DKK, ISK) in their English communication. As most payments are done by card, carrying the wrong cash is less of a problem than it was a few decades ago. Wikivoyage currently has the policy to always use the domestic currency acronym. Should Nordic countries be a motivated exception to the rule? /Yvwv (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it's quite obvious that SEK or ISK won't be accepted in Tromsø or DKK in Gävle but at the same time and there are few bordertowns where such would cause confusion. I suppose the same can be said for the many countries that use the dollar, so I !vote nay for an exception. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The point of confusion is that many visitors assume that all countries use the same currency at the same exchange rate; or that they except to be able to pay with the same cash in all countries. /Yvwv (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd say no. It should be obvious that in Iceland, "kr" denotes the Icelandic krona, and not the Swedish, Norwegian or Danish currencies. The dog2 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

One could check that we make this sufficiently clear in the country articles' Buy sections and in Nordic countries#Buy (I think this last one is very clear). If a traveller believes the currency of one country is usable in another country because they are called the same (cf dollars, pesos etc.), and doesn't read our Buy sections, we cannot really help. –LPfi (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

There are 20 or so currencies that use the $ symbol. We don't modify those unless it is customary in the country (e.g., R$ for the Brazilian real). Ground Zero (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding onto GZ, we also only include it if it's needed for clarity (e.g. USD in Central America and the Caribbean, AUD/SGD in Indonesia, or NZD/AUD in Polynesia) in addition if it's customary. Even for a place like Windsor (Ontario), I would think it's completely unnecessary and redundant to list prices as C$ as opposed to $ because an irresponsible traveller didn't do their conversions. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The clarification is usually needed where two currencies are used side by side, and the foreign currency is preferred for some transactions. Here the foreign krona's usefulness is very limited and never the preferred choice (other than to get rid of change that would be an unnecessary hassle to exchange). Thus, there is very seldom a need to tell any prices in other than the domestic currency, and when it is deemed useful, the foreign currency can be specified ("They take also Swedish kronas, but then the price is [X]" or "...SEK, but ..."). —The preceding comment was added by LPfi (talk • contribs) 12:49, October 27, 2022

Completing 0 for exchange rates

Swept in from the pub

I have noticed that many exchange rates end up having just one digit, e.g. €9.1. In school we actually learnt to always include two digits for currencies, even if the second one is a zero. We would also never name just the one digit but always state the number as a part of 100. The reason for that being the fact that the digits also represent the amount of "small" money. €9.10 is actually €9 and 10 cents. So, nine euros and ten. We would never say 9 euros point/and 1, because that would be ambiguous.

Furthermore, the full way of display (€9.10) is also more intuitive and not to mention more understandable for less literate people. Some people have weaknesses with numbers and reading, which is why we also have a "Simple English" version of Wikipedia.

Hence, would you consider it reasonable to always have two digits in such cases, even if the number is rounded to the next tenth?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree, when we're talking about currencies, something like "€9.1" does look really weird. Ypsilon (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

In other contexts I would agree, but for exchange rates? Those are never given as dollars and cents. I prefer having a sensible number of significant digits, and I don't see a problem in not implying cents (or whatever). –LPfi (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Currencies like the euro, dollar, or pound, are almost always given in 2 decimal places (not sig figs, though), FWIW. I agree that €9.1 looks off-putting and unnatural. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Exchange rates for euros As of October 2024: US$1 ≈ €0.92 UK£1 ≈ €1.2 AU$1 ≈ €0.62 CA$1 ≈ €0.66 Japanese ¥100 ≈ €0.67 Exchange rates fluctuate. Current rates for these and other currencies are available from XE.com

I think all prices in currencies with centesimal small change are given with two decimals or none. However, exchange rates are more or less never given with those two decimal places. Would you expect them in a list of exchange rates (at an exchange bureau or the like, with six significant digits for other currencies, but seven for one with the decimal point after the fifth digit)? I don't think the euro rates in this info box look weird, although it has one decimal for all currencies (as of now, January rates). –LPfi (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If it would just be a number in the way of USD/EUR = 0.9, I would agree, but indeed it says that for US$1 you get/need €0 and 90 (Euro) cents, not 9 cents ... which again some people not firm with such things will interpret it as.

Even if one digit might not look weird to you, you wouldn't say the alternative of using two digits increases in weirdness, would you?

It is also a matter of consistency, everywhere on WV we stick to quoting currencies with two (or none) digits and suddenly for exchange rates we apply a different standard. What for?

Here is what people see at an exchange bureau: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3 (just the first things that came up when searching for "exchange rate (display)") ... And while this even sometimes involves more than 2 digits, I believe 2 digits are the best compromise and what people would deal best with.

@LPfi: Does this convince you to head into this direction?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather see two or three digits after the decimal point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If people really get confused, then perhaps we should do the change – such confusion just is hard for me to understand (to quote Professor Kirke: What do they learn in school nowadays?). Having two digits after the decimal point would work for these euro rates, it just means updating more frequently – even for UK£, which seems to be 1.14 at the moment. For something like 9.23, the last digit would probably be spurious for any non-pegged currency. –LPfi (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

In several restaurants I see prices like 4.5 (and also 3.95) on the menu. See: this example. --FredTC (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that in the US, if the menu says:

Hamburger ...........16

then people spend more than if the menu says:

Hamburger ...........$16

Without the $ symbol, it doesn't "look like" money, so I don't think about the price so much. I wonder if the same thing is going on with that menu. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

:-) That reminds me about the lotteries where you can win €10,000.00. That's a lot more than 10,000, isn't it? –LPfi (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, that's not true. In the U.S., unless the menu says "tax is included in prices," you always pay more than the menu price in any state or city that charges sales tax. And that's before considering tips. However, I have never noticed any difference between the charge with or without a dollars sign on the menu. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The charge may be the same, but customers may not be as careful with their money. They'll pay the same $16+tax+tip, but think less about it, at least until pay time. Somewhat different logic from the €99 prices, but still manipulating your sense of the price. –LPfi (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying there are studies showing that if a restaurant leaves off the dollars sign, customers spend more money on food and drinks, on average, or is that what WhatamIdoing meant? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that was what she meant. I know no studies on the subject, and she didn't hint at any scientific evidence. –LPfi (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That is what I meant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

See https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2009/12/beware-menus-dont-use-dollar-signs if you're interested in this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That's interesting. Sorry for not understanding what you meant, at first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If I see $1 = €0.90, I assume that means that exchanging $1 I'll get 90 cents, give or take half a cent. If I see $1 = €0.9, I assume that means that exchanging $1 I'll get 90 cents, give or take 5 cents. They mean different things.

When I update exchange rates every year, I provide general rates like $1 = €0.9 for two reasons:

1. it is more yseful for people doing math in their heads, and
2. more precise rates will go out of date quickly.

Providing rates to 3 or 4 significant digits implies precision that we can't provide when our rates are updated annually. Ground Zero (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. If the rate is 0.9323 we should write 0.9 or 0.93, not 0.90. For the euro rates we get a precision of about 1% with two decimal places, which might be about right for a few weeks. If the rate is 0.95 when the readers gets to the exchange booth, that's no problem, as we warn about outdated rates. A rate of 9.63 will become outdated in no time even with major currencies, let alone with minor currencies with inflation problems. Four significant figures is nonsense.

If we update on yearly bases, 0.7 is about as good as we can get, but some readers believing that means seven eurocents for a Canadian dollar is not what we want – we have a trade-off between giving good information that people misinterpret and giving bad information that people grasp. Sigh.

–LPfi (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I also appreciate the point of math in one's head. I can do something smart about 0.93, such as rounding down or using a fractional approximation that makes sense for specific calculations (13/14 or whatever), but most people are stuck with the figures we provide. –LPfi (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we know how $1.7 will sound to somebody listening to the article being read by a text-speech application? I think that $1.70 is less likely to be heard as if it were $1.07, and using 2 decimal places might cause some applications to recognise it as dollars and cents. AlasdairW (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is taking 0.90 instead of 0.9 less useful for maths? They are the same number. Also, I already made the point about what travellers usually encounter, and it is not 0.9. So in this sense, 0.90 is more natural to the traveller.

Also, 0.9 has its imprecision already built in, hasn't it? It is already out of date (most of the time) when it is updated, because of the rounding. Using 0.9 or 0.93 is not more or less imprecise to the current exchange rate (on average). Thus, we don't actually have to update more precise exchange rates of two digits more often. You might feel like that there is a need for a higher update frequency but precision-wise that feeling has no foundation.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Decimal figures tell the precision by the number of digits after the delimiter. 9.0 = 9±0.05, 9.00 = 9±0.005. Calling 0.93 0.90 is deviating from this standard. I don't like giving wrong information to get travellers to do the right thing. Also, before this discussion, I would have corrected the 0.90 to 0.93 in the next update without thinking twice. Do we want a big "don't correct trailing zeroes to the actual values" notices? If not, the choice is between 0.9 and 0.93, with everything that follows. –LPfi (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You a right. I am saying take 0.93 and update as often as before. There is no loss of accuracy, because 0.9 was already wrong to start with.

Here is a proposal:

• 0.0020-0.1499, 0.15-14.99, 15-...
• However, keep all rates with the same amount of digits—if in doubt, take more digits: e.g. CUR1 = €14.57, CUR1 = US$15.42.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There may be no loss of accuracy, but there is a loss of time during which our figures are (even approximately) correct.

• I don't understand your first bullet.
• Four significant figures is nonsense for most currencies. €15 and US$15 are much easier to read, much easier to calculate with, probably not much less accurate at the time they are read – and probably not off by more than ±1 of the last digit, i.e. not less accurate than expected from such a figure.

–LPfi (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Just another point here for the ones saying, we should not use 0.90, but on the other hand 0.93 creates imprecision within a few days. Apparently, the 0.90 approach does not seem to be an issue for Laos#Money. Cheers Ceever (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There are two significant figures in the Laos rates. Usually we use 2–3, seldom just one. As I said above, in the Euro case adding the second significant digit wouldn't be a problem. For Laos, obviously, two significant digits are a bit much, but I agree with you that the same number of digits, or same number of significant digits, often looks nicer, and rounding the 2,500 to either 2,000 or 3,000 would be a little too much. The 17,000, 18,000 and 21,000, though, could all be stated as 20,000. –LPfi (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

As food for thought... What do we expect readers to do with the rates we give them?

• If they're using it to plan I assume they need an idea of how a currency compares to what they're used to, and how volatile that comparison is (e.g. 7,000 HUF "sounds" like a lot for a hostel bed in Budapest, and 50,000 HUF "sounds" like a huge amount to carry in around my pocket- is it? Will it be wildly different this summer?).
• If they're using it on-the-go to decide what to spend to get local money, the only rate that really matters is the one they have access to. I'd suggest they need a sense of what is typical. If 1 USD is roughly either 0.9 or 0.93 EUR, should I be worried when the Reisebank at a Berlin train station tells me 1 USD = 0.9712 EUR? If the toilet in Budapest asks for either 100 HUF or 1 EUR (true story!), who is getting a better deal?

Giving 0.9 or 0.90 or 0.93 or 0.9712 for any of these purposes in a guide isn't wrong (assuming the rounding is correct and a date is provided), but is it helpful? I think readers are looking for a rule of thumb, and I'd suggest that offering a range (with a proper explanation) would be more helpful. A range isn't precise, but it's not inaccurate as long as we're clear about the time covered. For example, if I were planning a trip in a few months, is it better to know with precision what things would have cost in Jan 2023 at 1 USD=0.93 EUR, or is it better to know that 1 USD ranged from 0.84 to 1.04 EUR over the last 12 months? I can be cautious (and lazy) and think 1=1, or I can go down the middle and use 0.96.

As a bonus, I think a range is a bit gentler on anyone who doesn't understand how conversion works, unless we want to explain mid-market rates, commission, credit card fees, ATM scams, etc. Gregsmi11 (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that the objections to greater precision are based in a rose-colored view of the average person's numeracy. If you're a math/stats person, then you likely see 0.9 as meaning 0.9±0.1 and 0.90 as meaning 0.90±0.01. If you're an average person, 0.9 and 0.90 are the same, only the latter is more recognizable as having something to do with money, because it follows the convention most English speakers are accustomed to.

I agree with you that a range has some advantages, but we could also change "Exchange rates fluctuate" to say "Exchange rates fluctuate and you will probably have to pay conversion fees." WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

More useful still is to quote the approx exchange spread for major exchange kiosks such as airports. At UK airports what you get is 30% adrift from the bank rate, daylight robbery, so pothering over whether a pound today is 0.91 euro or 0.911 or 0.911111 is misapplied effort. "High Street" kiosks might be 15-20% off. In the Far East and post-Soviet bloc I've found offers within 2%, which I grabbed smartly. Grahamsands (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Practical example, I need to re-stock on US $. Do I look at the WV entry? - hell no, what I need is today's official rate. I then see what nearby exchanges offer. That in my home town is 5% off the rate, good value so I'll buy that. The city exchange is within 4% so if I had another reason to go there . . . but I don't, and the money and time cost of a specific trip outweighs the gain. When I head to the airport, I'll check their lousy offering, and add a surly note on WV if that's not already done. Grahamsands (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

How to show currency ranges

Swept in from the pub

Is there an agreed upon way to show currency ranges (e.g. $1-4 vs $1-$4)? Danielt998 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up, please use en dashes, not hyphens. re: one versus two $s, but my preference is one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikivoyage:Currency#Formatting: "Write price ranges using a single currency symbol and a single dash with no spaces, e.g. Dinner: €10–20". Vidimian (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Icelandic krona

I've made a proposal to change Icelandic krona's currency format. Please join the discussion there. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)