Template talk:INRConvert

Template is protected from anonymous editing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Paise

Another small glitch. Entering a paise value in rupee terms. 0.05 rupees should be rendered as 5 paise. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bloomberg copyright violation?

Bloomberg's currency conversion information is copyrighted and usage, unless separately licensed from Bloomberg, is covered by their terms of service (TOS). Section 3 of the TOS, "Restrictions on Use" say (in part) that:

"...THE SERVICE AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN MAY NOT BE USED TO CONSTRUCT A DATABASE OF ANY KIND. NOR MAY THE SERVICE BE STORED (IN ITS ENTIRETY OR IN ANY PART) IN DATABASES FOR ACCESS BY YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY OR TO DISTRIBUTE ANY DATABASE SERVICES CONTAINING ALL OR PART OF THE SERVICE. YOU MAY NOT USE THE SERVICE IN ANY WAY TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF ANY DATA SOLD OR CONTRIBUTED BY YOU TO ANY THIRD PARTY. ..."

This template's use of the Bloomberg currency conversion information appears to be in violation both of Bloomberg's TOS and of Wikipedia's requirement for information to be released under the GFDL. Mwarren us (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but there are a couple of points that I think should be clarified. First, we aren't storing information, either in part or whole. We reference their values, but don't actually store them. The rates that exist in the template are "inverse rates", for lack of a better term. There appears to be no mention on in the copyright disclaimer preventing the use of "processed" data. Second, if this is, in fact, an issue, I'm concerned about how this impacts the larger issue on Wikipedia where we routinely source our currency conversions from Bloomberg and other sources. Is there a larger copyright issue here? Third, if we do want to explore using data from other agencies, there are several government-based agencies that publish foreign exchange rate conversions, such as the Reserve Bank of India, India's central banking authority or the Federal Reserve. I don't mind doing this, but I would want some clarifications on the two points above before changing data as it currently stands. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer either (perhaps other Wikipedians have discussed this elsewhere and enlisted a lawyer?) and I am glad to hear that alternate, possibly free sources are available for the conversion information. With the concerns above in mind, I re-read Bloomberg's TOS and three of the sentences in Section 3 of the TOS still appear problematic for this template (and perhaps in other places in Wikipedia):

YOU MAY NOT COPY, REPRODUCE, RECOMPILE, DECOMPILE, DISASSEMBLE, REVERSE ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, DISPLAY, PERFORM, MODIFY, UPLOAD TO, CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS FROM, TRANSMIT, OR IN ANY WAY EXPLOIT ANY PART OF THE SERVICE, EXCEPT THAT YOU MAY DOWNLOAD MATERIAL FROM THE SERVICE AND/OR MAKE ONE PRINT COPY FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL, NONCOMMERCIAL USE, PROVIDED THAT YOU RETAIN ALL COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPRIETARY NOTICES.

The phrase "CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS FROM" seems to cover, and prohibit, display of "processed" data. The template also seems to "DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, DISPLAY" part of the service (currency conversion) for purposes other than personal, non-commercial use (e.g. the template shows data for public display in Wikipedia).

ADDITIONALLY, YOU MAY NOT OFFER ANY PART OF THE SERVICE FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTE IT OVER ANY OTHER MEDIUM INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO OVER-THE-AIR TELEVISION OR RADIO BROADCAST, A COMPUTER NETWORK OR HYPERLINK FRAMING ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BLP.

The template does re-distribute some of Bloomberg's information (the currency conversion rate) on a computer network.

YOU MAY NOT USE THE SERVICE IN ANY WAY TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF ANY DATA SOLD OR CONTRIBUTED BY YOU TO ANY THIRD PARTY.

This templates' use of Bloomberg's data does, IMHO, "IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF ... DATA" offered by Wikipedia.

While Bloomberg's TOS does have contact information where Wikipedia could ask for permissions, I suspect that folks will gravitate to the (probably) free information from government sources. --Mwarren us (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well...that makes things pretty clear :) I just thought the language in the ToS was amusing...they've thrown in every conceivable verb that I can think of in there. But they work hard to come up with the data and they don't want someone misusing it, so fair enough. I'll go ahead and change the values in the template. There's some ambiguity over whether Indian government related content is public domain (the last discussion on Wikipedia I think ended with a "no" on this issue). We'll have to use data from the Fed, which I know is public domain, by virtue of the Fed being part of the US government. I'll try to make the changes tomorrow, if not later this evening. Thanks AreJay (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no case here. Currency conversion is classified as "information". Information cannot be copyrighted. A rupee-dollar conversion value constitutes as public information that is not the intellectual property of Bloomberg or any other organization. So, such numbers can never be copyrighted, trademarked or patented. Claiming copyright on currency values is as ludicrous as claiming copyright on today's temperature. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Very valid point that I should have considered. Bloomberg does not "own" day-to-day currency trade information and can therefore not claim copyright over it. So the question of copyrighting currency data does not even arise. Nevertheless, we can retain the Federal Reserve reported data, given the status of that organization in the grand scheme of things in the US. Datawise, there isn't any big difference b/w Bloomberg and the Fed. Both report daily rates and FRB New York sponsors the Foreign Exchange Committee, which publishes guidelines on foreign exchange trading in the US. AreJay (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Board

I don't know whether you saw this, but,

Effective January 1, 2009, the Federal Reserve Board is discontinuing publication of the H.10 Daily Update, which provides U.S. dollar exchange rates against other currencies certified for customs purposes by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and summary measures of the foreign exchange value of the dollar.[1]

-- Suntag ☼ 13:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Rupee-dollar conversion

There may be value to modify the template to output the rupee-dollar conversion for a given date. Basically, a subpage of this template would include a conversion table of the rupee-dollar conversion multiplier for each 12 Noon Buying Rate going back as far as there is data. Then, if someone had need for the rupee-dollar conversion on January 6, 1987, they would need only type in the date and fill in the other parameters presently in the template. If the date parameter is blank, then the default value will be the last value in the table. Plus, rather than modifying the value in the template, the values of the rupee-dollar conversion multiplier table would only need updating. The rupee-dollar conversion value going back to October 5, 1993 can be found at U.S. Federal Reserve bank. I'm sure that the U.S. government has published more extensive tables elsewhere. The best situation would be if Wikipedia could tap into external conversion tables for internal usage, which probably is true for any time-dependent conversion. -- Suntag ☼ 14:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know about the Fed stopping the publication of forex rates. We'll have to rely on data from other sources like Bloomberg or India's RBI going forward. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevancy issue

I initially throught that this template tapped into historical conversion data. On reviewing the code, I realized that it did not. The more I think about this template, the more I become concerned. For example, in the Fodder Scam article, Rs. 950 crore were taken in 1997. The article taps into this conversion template to say that Rs. 950 crore was US$ 191.81 million in 1997. That is not true since this template uses today's conversion value, not the one from 1997. Also, even if the template output were change to read something like Rs. 950 crore (recent exchange rate US$ 191.81 million), that would not seem relevant to the topic because 950 crore in 1997 meant something different from 950 crore in 2008. The correct approach would be to convert 950 crore in 1997 to U.S. dollars in 1997, then {{inflation}} adjust the U.S. dollars into 2008. That would provide a better characterization of 950 crore in 1997 in today's U.S. dollars. -- Suntag ☼ 14:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the point that you're making. However, the idea behind this template is to simplify the conversion rupees to dollars as of the current date. Indian articles (and I would suspect, several other articles) on Wikipedia, prior to the creation of the template used current currency rates to display dollar equivalents, even for historic values. While I admit that there is a systemic logic flaw in the way this is treated on Wikipedia, all the template does is allow users to semi-automate that process. Second point...I am working on a system that will adjust Indian rupees' historic values based on inflation. The code is currently being tested (User:AreJay/INRInflation/test) and can certainly be incorporated into INRConvert once it is determined that it is functioning as needed. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New Symbol/sign

It would be great idea to add new Rupee sign ie. instead of Rs. KuwarOnline ^Talk 05:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree... the template {{INR}} prints this directly -> . Virtualage (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.25.174.143, 29 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Using the INRRequest function inserts a space between the rupee symbol and the numerals. For example - 86,720 crore (US$19.1 billion) puts a space between the rupee symbol and 86720. This is not the standard format for displaying currencies (The same INR convert statement above displays the $ symbol properly - with no space). Please rectify this.

69.25.174.143 (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Hopefully I didn't break anything. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Great template

This is a great template. It would be wonderful to have most of the worlds major currencies automatically convertible via a master template, drawing data automatically via scripts from a reliable source, on a weekly or daily basis. It would high-lite an advantage of Wikipedia over static resources (books, journals, papers), where currency conversion is always outdated. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Crore linking

Would anyone mind editing the template code to include wikilinks to crore? Many people do not understand the concept of a crore, and need further reading. Thanks. Ωphois 17:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Extra space when US$ is $1 billion or more

When the result is US$ is $1 billion or more an extra space is inserted between the and the amount.

• 10 billion (US$220 million) {{INRConvert|10|b}} - result on my screen is "10 billion (US$981.2 million)"
• 44 billion (US$968 million) {{INRConvert|44|b}} - result on my screen is "44 billion (US$981.2 million)"
• 45 billion (US$990 million) {{INRConvert|45|b}} - result on my screen is " 45 billion (US$1 billion)"
•  100 billion (US$2.2 billion) {{INRConvert|100|b}} - result on my screen is " 100 billion (US$1 billion)"

Is this expected/desired behavior or would someone in India normally write "100 billion?" --Marc Kupper|talk 19:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Linking the

Can the existing references to {{INR}} be changed to instead be {{INR|link=Indian rupee}}? At least one editor was confused by "10 billion (US$220 million)" as he or she did not recognize the symbol. If INR linked the result would be "10 billion (US$223 million)" which looks the same but the is linked. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Outdated

I'm sorry to note this but the rupee-dollar conversion factor is very very outdated. By present standards, the conversion factor is approx. 45 = US$1. This is quite far from the actual figure of 49 = US$1. I suggest that this misleading number be chnaged at the earliest. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the rate using the latest value (Oct 28, 2011) from the source. Ravensfire (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that all you did was to convert the entire dollar part to zeroes. Wow. Congratulations. Now, 130 crore equals 0 million dollars. What a wonderful edit. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tch tch, you are making no attempt to hide the sarcasm; keep it cool guys, the world is a better place without our heads being hot ;) Lynch7 17:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Though we'd probably appreciate it if Ravensfire hurries up on whatever he's doing to rectify the error, its affecting a hell lot of articles. Lynch7 17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, Y Done now. Updated the rupee value as 49.312 per dollar. Lynch7 17:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting this, MikeLynch. My apologies, I was pulled away after saving the new rate in one page and before I could test it. Ravensfire (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No problemo, just be careful with templates next time, it affects lots of articles. Lynch7 17:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do - pretty embarrassed about this one. Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Mike for correcting thsi easily-avoidable mistake. And by the way, where are you? You seem to have disappeared from Ra.One. The way the article is going, I am forced to quote this :- "The more the merrier" (though I find it cheesy). Please help me out in shortening the plot section. The way I'm writing out the plot, it looks like an Avatar article in itself! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Its hard to work on big articles, and it needs a lot of energy—something which I am lacking these days ;) You guys seem to be doing just fine, keep up the good job! Lynch7 18:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dude! That's not the response I expected :P. BTW, did you actually see Ra.One? AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)