This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Channel Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Channel Islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Channel IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Channel IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Channel IslandsChannel Islands-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Man, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Isle of Man on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Isle of ManWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of ManTemplate:WikiProject Isle of ManIsle of Man articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jersey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jersey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject JerseyTemplate:WikiProject JerseyJersey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GibraltarWikipedia:WikiProject GibraltarTemplate:WikiProject GibraltarGibraltar articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia articles
Yet another bid to give the abbreviation STG undue prominence, initiated yet again by banned editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per WP:BRD, I have reverted a large bold edit by IP editor 89.242.189.146 (talk). As has been discussed many times before, the present coverage in what is already a long article has been considered wp:DUE. Banned editor user:TheCurrencyGuy pushed it to death and the edit by this IP is disturbingly similar. But assuming good faith for the moment, the case for increased coverage must be made here first and consensus reached for the extent, if any, of increased coverage. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence to the #Currency code section, which should be enough given that it has been obsolescent for 50 years. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all sure the assertion that it is merely historical and "obsolescent for 50 years" is correct. The sources included in this article indicates it is still used for new systems and says nothing about any plans for it to be replaced with the ISO 4217 code. ISO 20022's listing cites it as the only RTGS and clearing code for sterling; some of the codes listed on this document are identical to their ISO 4217 codes (such as "CAD"), but others are not (such as "BDS" for the Barbadian dollar). If "STG" was only legacy usage the list would include both STG and GBP. 89.242.188.113 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ISO20022 is merely reporting that it is an abbreviation still recognised by CHAPS and gives it an alias for United Kingdom GBP.
The citation given [1] has just one mention, Existing CHAPS FIN Y-Copy service(s), identified in field 103 in block 3 of the FIN-MT message, e.g. STG. Section 1.2 of main intro to the article says The CHAPS-ISO SWIFTNet services are an evolution of the current CHAPS-FIN services, so it is clearly being phased out. It does not say that it is being used for new systems. GBP is defined in ISO 4217 (1973, hence 50 years ago). NB that an example of use is not a valid citation: nothing in the source states that STG is a valid abbreviation for pound sterling.
The space allocated to such a marginal item must be wp:DUE: one sentence is adequate. If more detailed coverage is needed, then CHAPS is the appropriate article to put it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barbadian dollar includes "BDS" (though does not cite the fact it is the RTGS and clearing code) and renminbi includes "RMB" even though it is neither an RTGS nor a clearing code, will you be pursuing the removal of RMB or relegating it to a historical footnote? CNY surely should trump RMB if GBP trumps STG. ISO 4217 is an old standard and demanding strict adherence to a single pretty old coding standard at the expense of even mentioning different existing abbreviations and codes is rather odd. Some countries such as Venezuela and Brazil are at risk of running out of potential ISO 4217 codes due to inflation so it is inevitable the standard will be replaced some day. I suspect this argument needs to be taken elsewhere for greater exposure because it is a broader issue than just this one page. OurangMedan (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this article is not the place for that debate. ISO 4217 is unarguably the current standard and is used ubiquitously. You can try raising the status of those other abbreviations at talk:ISO 4217 or talk:Currency, but they are irrelevant here. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have been misreading the ISO 20022 documentation and the definition of what an external code is. [2]
The ISO 20022 messages may use internal or external code sets.
External code sets are not included in a message schema and are approved by the SEGs.
The purpose and value of externalizing a code set is to allow for a more frequent update of the code set by for example adding new codes in the set without impacting the version of the messages and the development cycle of the messages. In practice the external code sets follow a quarterly update cycle.
In short, it allows users to add new codes or change codes without having to modify the entire standard, thus they are not "obsolescent" or "legacy" codes, but valid codes for ISO 20022. OurangMedan (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody else have anything to say about this proposal? Surely it is better than the current mess filled with loose ends and unsourced assertions. OurangMedan (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for this WP:BRD was your (or your alter-egos) scattergun approach to shove stg into multiple places in the article. The question has always been about how much coverage is due and proportionate.
Should it be in the lead? No, per WP:LEAD, the essential points of the article go there and in such a large article we have to be ruthlessly selective. This abbreviation is very 'back office' in banking; occasionally journalistic use is partly for variety (see also 'Cable') and partly for gnosticism. It is too peripheral. It appears in the infobox, that is adequate. STG (disambiguation) has a pointer to this article, so no-one will be left in the dark.
As I have told you many times before, examples of use are not valid citations. It is entirely to be expected that East African, Egyptian and Irish sources will consider it appropriate to disambiguate the word 'pound' because other pounds exist or have existed in those territories in recent memory.
The current text does not say exclusively historical sources, though that is where most "lay" readers are ever likely to encounter it. It would be reasonable to add a brief mention of continued use by CHAPS/SWIFT, if a defining citation can be found (not an example of use).
Yes, the the unsourced stuff about GBX/GBp and the idle speculation on how ISO formulated the code should definitely go.
I did not "scattergun" in my initial edit; I included it in two sections where it is most appropriate.
GBP is a line of machine code which is unintuitive and essentially meaningless to a lay person (hence the invention of erroneous backronyms to justify it)
STG is both a code (in certain contexts) and an abbreviation which Ngram results show is used about 3 fifths as often as "GBP" and thus is not nearly as insignificant as has been asserted (though we cannot say for certain what percentage of results were from blocks of data and what percentage were from prose use, so that could complicate matters). "STG" is not infact in the infobox at all.
The current text says "In historical sources, the abbreviation stg (in various styles) has been used to indicate sterling", so it implies to the reader that it is not current, which the news articles and code sets brought to the table disprove. The information about STG being the real time gross settlement and clearing code is hidden in a note, and that note claims it is only for legacy system usage, which it does not appear to be. If STG were as "obsolescent for 50 years" as you have stated then I am sure it would have disappeared many years ago; there cannot be many computer coding systems in present use that pre-date 1973.
Two of the sources that were offered for "STG POUND" were from territories that never used the sterling pound as their primary money of account: Kenya and India; British India used the rupee, Kenya did use sterling, but their unit of account was based on the shilling divided into 100 cents. Therefore I think it is a stretch to entirely dismiss "STG POUND".
STG seems to be still used to denote British pounds. For example, see this Reuters article, which uses it in the title, or this BIS article. It would be unwise to remove it to the historical section. A better idea would be to mention this as a possible albeit non-standard and rarer abbreviation. Vgbyp (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. It just said 'In historical sources' and that got me confused. But the point is that it is still in use, which means that it isn't only in historical sources. Another recent example would be the IMF using STG as an abbreviation in report on Cameroon released on July 10, 2023. Vgbyp (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vgbyp: Interesting that it uses the expression STG Pound just once, and in a table. No mention of e.g., Egyptian Pound so why did anyone think it necessary to disambiguate? The body of the report immediately preceding the table uses GBP. (The spread of six-month GBP SONIA over six-month USD SOFR is 1 basis point. For interest rates on currencies other than Euro, JPY, and GBP, the spread over six-month USD SOFR is 15 basis points. But apart from occasional anomalous uses such as this one, it is really quite rare. It is obsolescent but not obsolete: Google Ngram viewer shows that continued usage is small but not trivial.[3] The reference to "historical sources" is because the abbreviation was heavily used when there were many other pounds in the British Empire and Commonwealth, so sources from that time predominate. So as I've said, this abbreviation needs to be covered in the article (and it is) but the coverage should be proportionate. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The table uses "US Dollar" as well, but specifies no other dollars, it is clearly using "STG" as an abbreviation.
There are more uses of "STG" on Ngram if one selects "case insensitive" (since the abbreviation can be initial capitalized, all caps, or all lower case). The Ngram results do not, unfortunately, tell us whether the results were from prose text or columns of data. I am not suggesting intensive use of STG, just noting it as an abbreviation and code that is used without making unsourced assertions on its status.
Personally I think just the pound sign with no abbreviation or ISO code suffices in all but historical sources, and in those few cases the word "sterling" appended will clear up any issue; there are no active currencies that frequently use the pound sign other than those at par with sterling so for modern day use no confusion will exist. OurangMedan (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JMF is currently trying to get me banned by claiming I am a banned user, so I will leave this here if this is the last port of call for me: JMF has so far provided no citable sources for his assertions of "obsolescence" and "legacy", if something cannot be demonstrated by reliable sources surely we have no place stating it as fact. Keeping in bold unsourced assertions and using those assertions as a justification for keeping out citations is bad form.OurangMedan (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your account was created on 29 July 2023 at 12:14 - that is, yesterday; and also two days after this thread was started. Your very first edit as a registered user occurred just under six hours later, and was to this thread; since then, you have made six more edits to this page, all in this thread. Now some people might feel that these seven edits are not the kind of edits that a genuine newbie would make, so they may wonder what you might have previously done under a different moniker. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^Leach, Robert (2021). "Section 2: Abbreviations". Leach's Tax Dictionary. London: Spiramus Press Ltd. p. 838. ISBN9781913507190. Archived from the original on 17 August 2022. Retrieved 22 June 2022. Other spelling styles, such as STG and Stg, are also seen.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The current advice is poorly worded and potentially creates more issues than it solves.
The specific line in question is this: "GBP, sterling's ISO 4217 code, should be used to disambiguate that currency from others. Avoid using stg. or GB£."
This is unclear and gives no aid to helping resolve problems comparing with currencies that never had ISO currency codes. It has resulted in some strange anomalies like in this diff[4]; where an ISO code was crowbarred into a sentence about the early 18th century, prior to the existence of the United Kingdom or even the Kingdom of Great Britain. This has since been corrected, but I feel we should have more categorical advice in such circumstances.
My proposal is that this line be rewritten as this:
Do not append £ with abbreviations or codes (£123 STG or £123 GBP), in the vast majority of circumstances a simple pound sign alone will suffice to denote sterling. In those cases where disambiguation is absolutely necessary (for example if comparing with the historical Irish or South African pounds) qualify with the full word "sterling" (£123 sterling)[a]
^The same methodology should be applied to the Irish, South African, Australian, and New Zealand pounds; £123 Irish, £123 South African, £123 Australian, £123 New Zealand, unless the context is specific to that country, in which case a simple pound sign may be used.
(invited by the bot) For me (and other potential participants) I'd suggest clarifying exactly what instructions you are talking about including exactly where they are. North8000 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed this is not the right page, but WT:MOSNUM is. This is a WP:TALKFORK of discussion already open over there. As for this specific proposal and the wording it's trying to change, the notion that "GB£" or "UK£" should not be used but only "£" by itself or "GBP" is nonsense some rando made up out of nowhere, and inconsistent with our general treatement of currencies, which is to use the country code and the currency symbol at first occurrence if the context isn't already clear (no need to specify what "£" means in an article that's already entirely about the UK) or when comparing currencies. The pound sterling isn't "magically special" and doesn't need a divergent alleged rule written about it, so a proposal to makes tweak to the divergent alleged rule is a waste of time. The divergence should just be excised. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the RFC here if it was about the MOS? I.... What is going on? I have no idea how to navigate or understand this website's processes..... 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Names
The article states: ""Sterling" is the name of the currency as a whole while "pound" and "penny" are the units of account. This is analogous to the distinction between "renminbi" and "yuan" when discussing the official currency of the People's Republic of China."
This assertion is incorrect: "renminbi" and "yuan" are interchangeable terms for the currency of the People's Republic of China. Renmimbi is the official name for the currency, yuan is more of a colloquialism. Source: myself, having lived and worked in China. I recommend the article is corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.234.105 (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we will need a more reliable source than your personal experience of common usage: it would have to be a professional analysis. If you can find such, then please come back because there is a whole section on terminology at the Renminbi article that needs supporting (or denying!) evidence. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
The redirect Penny sterling 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 24 § Penny sterling until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
