Template talk:Pound sterling

Inflation calculation

While inclined to be bold, I'm not entirely sure what is a functional display and what is strictly text for example, so I would like an opinion, please. What I mean is, in the examples given under the Inflation calculation heading, the example coding does not appear to match the resulting display text. The very first example, as well as three more examples, lacks "(equivalent to £XXX,XXX in 1208)" as part of the coding given. Further examples display mismatching years, which would be understandable if the resulting text displayed the current year, rather than last year, or the one before, which again doesn't match the year in the coding given.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I answered my own question. Sorry, I didn't properly read the text below the displayed boxes. I will leave this posted in case others experience similar confusion with the given examples.

Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The instructions say that the parts in parenthesis are shown only if the year is 1209 ≤ year < 2019.

The 4 examples missing them also correspond with being outside of that range.  Stepho  talk  02:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2022

I would like to request permission to change "GB£" to "£stg.", as "GB" is not part of the currency's name. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

As party to a previous dispute on this topic, I recuse from approving or disapproving this request.

However, I oppose the change because the requested notation is not generally recognised outside the UK (and is rare within the UK). The template refers readers to MOS:CURRENCY, which talks about the notations US$, CA$ and AU$ but nowhere says GB£, only £ unqalified. I agree with TheCurrencyGuy that GB£ is also not a recognised form anywhere. I would support outright deletion of the country code, so that {{GBP|100}} produces £100 (and not GB£100). So in effect, {{GBP}} becomes a convenient method for non-UK editors to write a pound sign. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing this request while it's under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Further comment: this long-established template is used in hundreds of articles which would all be changed at a stroke without regard for appropriateness. I suggest that a comprehensive impact assessment would be essential before doing anything. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I would be willing to compromise on changing it to "£" without qualificationTheCurrencyGuy (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Even though I created this template with the intent to show something that differentiated between the various pound currencies (eg Egyptian pound), I too am gradually being swayed to the simple "£". But we need to make sure that {{currency}} and other currency templates don't have any conflicts.  Stepho  talk  11:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Have we any consensus reached? While finding citations for the sterling article itself I found that most style guides prefer to use "£" without any qualification. The practice of disambiguating with "£ stg" (for example) seems to have become less common after South Africa, Australia and New Zealand adopted currency units based on a 10 shilling fraction of one pound. In the modern day the Egyptian, Lebanese and Syrian pounds always use a qualifying abbreviation (£E, £L and £S). It might be possible to construct an alternative template for situations where immediate distinction is absolutely vital, such as citing historic exchange rates between, say, the Australian and sterling pounds (eg. £1 stg = £A.1/5/-), but I wouldn't be sure how to code that. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes and no. Contributors to this discussion agree that it would be sensible in principle but are very worried about the Law of Unintended Consequences. You cite just a possible example: if an article is discussing British pounds and Australian pounds and it uses {{GBP}} and {{AUP}} to distinguish, then to change that so it renders £ v AU£ instead of GB£ v AU£ would be rather more seriously damaging to the article than the non-standard style "GB£". Such cases would have to be identified before changing the template rather than try to identify cock-ups afterwards. [Just manually changing instances of the template to use a simple pound sign instead would only work for the simple calls that don't use its extended features.]

To see if we can move this on, I have left an informal request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal to change template:GBP so that it produces £, not GB£. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The sign for the Australian pound was £A. Typically when a pound sign is used with an abbreviation the abbreviation tends to suffix the sign (eg. £C, £E, £L, £NZ, £P, £SA, £S etc., only the Irish (IR£) and Israeli (I£) pounds appear to buck the trend), so it might be worth looking into exempting these currencies from the "abbreviation must come before sign" rule. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless I think we may assume that colonial Oz used an unqualified £ when referring to their own currency (as they use an unqualified $ today). The only reason that they would need to qualify is when talking about another currency called pound on the same page. GB£ v. £A is unambiguous though non-standard: £ v. £A is just confusing and we must not use it. (WP:Think of the reader.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

£ [...] stg vs. £A. seems like it may be a better option then, the current template does allow for the coder to omit the qualifier. Though I wouldn't know how to even begin coding it. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Where disambiguation is needed, I think "GBP" will be more widely understood than "stg". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Could we not compromise on the full word being displayed?

ie. "£ [...] sterling", this seems to be the style of notation paper encyclopaedias tend to use. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible codings

I've devised a few possibilities that can be discussed.

Default: "£100" Default w/ link: "£100"

Special variants for qualification: Possibility 1: "£100 stg" Possibility 2: "£100 sterling"

Maybe also an option for the ISO code if anyone wants that. Possibility 1: "GBP 100" Possibility 2: "100 GBP"

Personally I would like all these options to be available for use depending on the context (such as "£100 sterling" on first use in an article, "£100 stg" for subsequent uses). I'm assuming we're all in agreement that the unqualified £ sign ought to be the default.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I prefer "100 GBP" because I think it is most widely understood. The alternative "£100 sterling" is also clear. For consistency, I do think we should choose between them and recommend just one of them. I don't think we should consider the other two options suggested. I don't have an opinion on an unqualified pound sign (£) as the default, except to say it should be treated the same way as an unqualified dollar symbol. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The part that bothers me the most is differentiating the multiple currencies that use the pound sign. Eg, we need to be able to tell whether we are talking about the British pound or the Egyptian pound. I'm not worried about differentiating the British pound from the New Jersey pound because they are just different notes for the same currency.

1. One way is to make visible additions to the £, eg GB£10 or £E10 . So far, GB£ hasn't got a lot of love.
2. The British pound is much more common, so we could make it £10 and £E10 . The Egyptians might get a bit annoyed at this preferred "first among equals" status of the British pound. I know that I get annoyed that a plain $ is taken as the US dollar while my home currency of the Australian dollar needs to be displayed as A$ unless we are in an explicitly Australian article.
3. For currency professionals, we just use the ISO 4217 codes like GBP 10 or EGP 10. Totally unambiguous. I used to write software for EFTPOS machines, so I'm personally happy with these codes. But non-currency professionals don't know what these are, so it's not really suitable for an encyclopaedia for a general audience.
4. We could just display £ for all of them and hope that context will make it clear which currency we mean. This will probably work the majority of the time but not all of the time.
5. We could just display £ for all of them but also link each one to its corresponding currency article. Eg £10 and £10. This falls foul of WP:OVERLINK but they might make an exception for us.
6. A combination of the previous two is promising. Most of the time we just display £ to mean the British pound (possibly linking to British pound the first time). Likewise, in Egyptian articles we display £ to mean Egyptian pounds (possibly linking to Egyptian pound the first time). And anywhere that is not clear is displayed as £ but also linked to the corresponding currency article. Luckily, the GBP template has a |link=yes parameter (linking is disabled by default).

The proposed use of "stg" or "sterling" takes a lot more space on the screen, distracts users that know what it means (probably most Brits) and will confuse users that don't know what it is (probably most non-Brits).

The proposed addition of GBP has similar problems as "stg" - distracting for knowledgeable readers and confusing for most readers. The confusing part is alleviated by linking GBP to British pound and EGP to Egyptian pound but it is still wordy and distracting.

My vote would be for option #6. Comments?  Stepho  talk  12:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the Egyptian pound always uses the qualifying abbreviation £E, I wasn't able to find any reliable source instances of an unqualified £ sign being used to represent it which is why I took it out of the article and changed all instances to £E. The historic Australian, New Zealand and South African currencies tended to use an unqualified £ domestically, and when a contrast with sterling was desired sterling tended to be marked as "£ [...] stg" and the local currency as "£A", "£NZ" or "£SA". My personal preference would be for "stg" because "sterling" would be a bit wordy if used repeatedly in the body of an article. I believe so long as "stg" links to the sterling article it will not be confusing as users can hover their cursor over the link. "GBP" would be odd to use in conjunction with £, and would look especially out of place in historic articles about topics from before ISO existed, particularly if contrasted against a currency that never had an ISO code.

My vote would be for "£" or "£" to display as default, with the option to display "£ [...] stg" as a qualification. Major style guides tend to advise use of an unqualified £ for sterling, when distinction is absolutely necessary "£ [...] stg" tends to be the most favoured, as noted by the World Bank on page 138 of their style guide. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I read the World Bank guide. The UK is on page 139, not 138. It says that abbreviations are £ or £ stg (without noting which is favoured). But that guide also differs from other Wikipedia usage. Eg, that guide says Australia and New Zealand use $A and $NZ but common usage (when disambiguating against the US$) is actually A$ and NZ$. Wikipedia uses A$ and NZ$, as agreed on their country wiki project pages. Note: I'm Australian.

I am very much against using "£ 10 stg" in normal prose. As I mentioned above, it is overly verbose and distracting for Brits and both confusing and distracting for non-Brits. I predict that it will get a lot of kick back if we go that way. I'm going to take a guess that you are British, which would explain why "stg" and "sterling" seem natural to you. Comments above are universally against using "stg" in any form.

Since I put a fair bit of work into looking at other options, could you comment on some of them. I think #2,5,6 have the most promise, especially #6.  Stepho  talk  02:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The World Bank's style guide uses "£0.01" in the subsidiary unit column, suggesting they favour the unqualified £ sign unless distinction is absolutely necessary.

I don't see how "£10 stg" is any more "confusing and distracting" or "overly verbose" than "GB£", which is not a recognised form anywhere as far as I have been able to determine and is rather annoying to see. There are no reliable source uses so it contradicts Wiki guidelines to use sourced recognised formats rather than inventing ones as per MOS:TMRULES.

I have not suggested using "£ [...] stg" as a default form, merely as a disambiguating variant when it is necessary. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't good reason to avoid using a recognised disambiguation where it would be appropriate.

Recently I ran into a pitfall like this when I used the ₥ sign on the Palestine pound article because I thought "mil/s" written out in full was cumbersome. But when I investigated reliable sources (such as Palestine's government Gazette) I found there was infact no record of any abbreviation at all being used for the Palestinian mil and I conceded to the person who took the sign out of the article.

I don't doubt you put in a lot of work, but it seems an awful lot of effort to tiptoe around using a recognised and known qualification supported by reliable sources, especially when at present this template uses an unsourced one which contradicts every single reliable source I have ever been able to find. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Through trial and error I have developed a coding which uses "£" by default with "stg." appearing if desired, either with or without link. I am unsure how to demonstrate it without screenshotting or putting it into the template. I have added it to the template on a trial basis to get opinions on how it looks. I tried to use the sandbox but I was not able to get it to thread the new coding through the doc box. If the change to the template causes issues I will be happy to manually adjust the articles using it. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You made the changes unilaterally - even though this discussion has not concluded and many of the contributors have said that "stg" is the wrong way to go. You must wait for consensus to form before changing the template. Especially one that is used in so many articles.  Stepho  talk  00:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You already used a completely unencyclopaedic notation that appears in no reliable sources and has no business being used in a template, I at least used a known cited and sourced example and which I coded by default to display no abbreviation. In the /doc file you claimed GB£ is "the standard British Pound sterling currency abbreviation" when no evidence at all suggests any notable use anywhere, in contrast to the known support of "£ stg.". What do you suggest then? Changing reality because WP:IDONTLIKEIT and simply making things up? As I stated, I made the change to gather opinions as I was not able to work out how to display it to others otherwise. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

We are already in a discussion to replace the previous version of the template. The previous version has been in place since about 2010 - it can stay there a little longer while we discuss it's proper replacement. Jumping the gun does not help. Sometime today I will address the points you raised. Then we, and hopefully others, will go back and forth until we find a mutually agreeable solution - in a civilised manner instead of trying to force our own opinion.  Stepho  talk  00:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I was not trying to force anything, I simply wished to demonstrate the coding I had managed to make. Wikipedia, like all encyclopaedias, exists, or at least ought to exist, to document the real world. Just because some aspects of the real world do not follow a standardised predictable pattern does not mean misrepresentation is acceptable. I simply do not understand this prejudice against a widely used and understood notation which has many supporting reliable sources. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The template has been in it's existing form for about 12 years. Granted that it needs some work - that's what the current discussion is about. But it's also a high use template and changing it before the discussion is finished is not wise. Have patience. The world will not stop spinning if it takes a little longer to get a mutually agreed answer. But you will upset a lot of people by chopping and changing a high use template - even more so if you make a mistake. Use a sandbox template if you just want to prove your coding technique.  Stepho  talk  00:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I already said I tried to use the sandbox, but was unable to get the /doc file to use the changed coding. Surely being a high use template makes it all the more important that it display cited and sourced abbreviations, not unsupported ones with no record of consistent use. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Then the obvious solution is to ask for help. To change the subject of an active discussion is a very efficient way to get a block. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was just very keen to get it out there when I worked out how to code it. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I skip the grumpy lecture :)  Stepho  talk  13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is the code I managed to develop so people can drop it into the template on "show preview" to see what it looks like.

<span style="white-space: nowrap">{{#ifeq:{{{link|no}}}|yes |£ |£ }}{{formatnum:{{{1|}}} {{#ifeq:{{{link}}}|yes|[[Pound sterling|stg.]]|{{#ifeq:{{{long|yes}}}|yes||stg. }}}}}}</span><!-- -->{{#ifeq:{{{year|{{{2|0}}}}}}|0||{{#ifexpr:{{Inflation/UK/startyear}}<={{{year|{{{2|0}}}}}} and {{{year|{{{2|0}}}}}}<{{Inflation/year|UK}} | ({{#if:{{{about|}}} |equivalent to about £{{formatnum:{{Inflation|UK|{{formatnum:{{{1|}}}|R}}|{{{year|{{{2}}}}}}|r={{{round|0}}}}}}} |equivalent to £{{formatnum:{{Inflation|UK|{{formatnum:{{{1|}}}|R}}|{{{year|{{{2}}}}}}|r={{{round|{{#ifexpr:{{Inflation|UK|{{formatnum:{{{1|}}}|R}}|{{{year|{{{2}}}}}}}}>1000|0|2}}}}}}}}} }} in {{Inflation/year|UK}}) }}}}<noinclude> {{documentation}} <!-- Add categories to the /doc subpage, interwikis to Wikidata, not here --> </noinclude> TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we're all agreed that GB£10 is a bit awkward. There are actually good reasons behind it's use but I'll skip them because no one seems to like it much. Even I can see it as a clumsy workaround. So, we all want to change it - we're just not sure what to to change it to yet.

£10 stg is also clumsy. For non-Brits, it is just plain weird - seriously weird. It might be common to say sterling or pounds sterling in Britain but it's practically unheard of outside. Non-Brits just Linking it to Pound sterling helps but it's still a rather awkward construct. You accused me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but in the discussion above no one else has said they like it. WP:IJUSTLIKEIT (on your part) should be avoided just as much as WP:IDONTLIKEIT on my part. Consensus is what we are actually after, where we can both agree (or at least compromise) on the final answer. I recognise that the World bank mentions it. But they also mention several other currencies symbol such as $A and $NZ that are ignored in favour of A$ and NZ$ by both Wikipedia and common use in the real world.

Similarly, the suggestion of using £10 (GBP) with a link to pound sterling looks a bit wordier than it needs to be. Similar for £10 (EGP) and the other pounds.

There seems to be a general wish by all of us in this discussion to use the plain £10 whenever possible. There don't seem to be an Egyptians or users of other non British pounds here but we should also extend the same courtesy to them to use the plain £10 for their pounds. It's only when there is potential confusion between the pounds that we get into difficulty. Possible suggestions are:

1. Use £10 for all variations in most situations but when necessary link the symbol to the corresponding currency article. Eg, It cost £10 in Scotland and £10 in Egypt. Readers can follow the links but it does have the problem that the printed form (ie, on paper) is still ambiguous.
2. Use £10 for all variations in most situations but when necessary the non-British pounds use the longer form (eg, £E 10). This makes the British pound the first among equals - just like the US dollar is first among equals for the various dollar currencies. As an Australian, this makes me grind my teeth but sometimes we just have to accept the elephant in the room. Unfortunately there seems to be no well accepted long form of the British version - GB£10, STG 10, £10 stg, £10 (GBP) and similar all being unfamiliar and awkward to one audience or another.

I'm open to other ideas or rebuttals of my above comments. Just remember that it is better to find a good solution than to find a quick solution.  Stepho  talk  13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your overall analysis. [But did you not know about the pound Scots? not a serious question or consideration!]

I'm concerned that #1 is (a) contrary to MOS:ACCESS, (b) people [e.g., teachers] do make paper copies of WP pages and (c) fails to recognise that people don't follow hyperlinks when they think they already know.

I think it has to be #2. In most cases, it is not an issue. In articles where two kinds of pound are being discussed (such as the history of the AU$), then I see no alternative to spelling out in full. If there is going to be a lot of repetition in the article, then an early sentence will have to say explicitly pound sterling (£stg) in each and every article where it is needed: that is a judgement call that a template can't do. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

But unfortunately that takes us back to where we came in: why do editors use this template? A few maybe as an easy way to type a pound sign on a US keyboard but in most cases. I strongly suspect, it is to disambiguate. Which will require every article that uses it to be checked.

Which leads me at least to the inescapable conclusion that the template will have to be left as it is, and the articles that use it edited individually to 'regularise' the notation. The present output of the template, GB£, may not be 'official' but it is self-explanatory to anyone familiar with AU$, CA$, NZ$ and US$. Which would mean deprecating new use but leaving existing use stand until they are all edited out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC) revised 16:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I would be perfectly willing to volunteer myself to go through every example of current use. I actually don't see the template being used very often in comparison to other currency templates, and I think this is because it is a clumsy approximation not used by any valid sources. Some articles seem to have used it without even checking how it registers in the finished article. The Supermarine article repeatedly uses the template (probably because someone didn't check the template) even when there is no disambiguation necessary as it was a British company and the amounts are not cited in relation to other currencies. I believe it was likely added by someone who did not have a keyboard including "£" and used the template to generate it.

I have no hostility to having multiple disambiguating codings for appropriateness of the context:

Default: £

First instance in prose: £ [...] sterling

Subsequent instances in prose £ [...] sterling

First instance in restricted space (such as infoboxes): £ [...] stg.

Subsequent instances in restricted space: £ [...] stg.

I'm definitely against using such an unsourced abbreviation as "GB£", I very strongly believe it is the function of Wikipedia to both reflect the real world and educate readers about the world. We use links so people may immediately understand what unfamiliar acronyms or abbreviations mean, this is how I found out about many abbreviations (particularly on scientific articles as I do not have an educated background).

In modern day usage all other currencies using £ always use a qualifying abbreviation, the Egyptian, Lebanese and Syrian currencies are never marked with an unqualified £ sign, they do not need the courtesy of an unqualified £ sign because they never use it. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

On thinking things over, I also believe it is presumptive that a reader will be completely clueless about what "sterling" is even when offered a link. People come to an encyclopaedia looking for factual information to increase their knowledge, not for clunky compromises based on assumptions. Wikipedia routinely uses far more obscure abbreviations and doesn't simply dig up unsourced and unsupported ones for the sake of pandering. For a non-controversial example, the Soviet Union was routinely referred to as "Soviet Russia" or "Communist Russia" (or even just "Russia") in the media, but Wikipedia does not use these terms as it is unencyclopaedic. This seems to me to be the crux of this whole affair. I advocate for using a legitimately used, sourced and supported abbreviation in preference to an unsourced one with no known usage by any relevant source. This is a major world currency we're talking about, not some long-forgotten Ruritanian Drachma type currency, and I think it is doing the subject a disservice to crowbar in a crude construct rather than using its valid abbreviation. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

No one is proposing that the word "sterling" be discarded. The issue is how to get from where we are now to to where we want to go without breaking many articles on the way, which is what will happen with peremptory change to the template. We must not lose sight of its other valuable facilities: it does more than provide a currency sign.

I wonder if a temporary 'transition flag' could be added so that, as each instance of its use is ticked off manually, the new style is applied for that article until eventually all are done? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Like I said, I would be willing to be the person who goes through the rigmorole of checking each instance. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

So, do we have a consensus?

Here is my proposal:

• £10,000 as default
• £10,000 default with link
• £10,000 sterling disambiguation in prose on first instance
• £10,000 sterling disambiguation in prose on subsequent instances
• £10,000 stg disambiguation in restricted space on first instance
• £10,000 stg disambiguation in restricted space on subsequent instances

I am perfectly willing to manually check each use so that it renders the appropriate variant. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Just dropping a reminder. I just want to make progress on this. I'm keen to get to work. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Will there be any action taken? I'm really committed to this because I believe it verges very dangerously toward WP:HOAX, as this template touts "GB£" as "the standard abbreviation", when it is not used by any reliable sources anywhere. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I've come across GBP and UKP, nothing else. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm against stg or sterling, if we're going to be using any abbreviations we should probably follow ISO 4217 and go with GBP. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I support following ISO 4217 for disambiguation. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Like Dondervogel, I too think that "stg" or "sterling" will not be well understood outside of the UK. I had a look at {{currency}} and was reminded of a similar situation that we solved for various Scandinavian currencies that all use "kr" (kroner = crown). The short form used "kr" but if there was an ambiguatuity then the second form dropped back to the ISO 4217 form - which is also what Dondervogel suggested. {{currency}} did this by having using SEK or SEK2 to select the currency. We could change the GBP template to display "£10" normally but add an option to make it display as "GBP 10" (or possibly "10 GBP"). Both forms could still have an optional link to pound sterling.  Stepho  talk  08:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't care anymore, I tried so hard, but its all crashed and burned, and there is clearly nothing to be gained because its just a complete impasse. This website is a dumpster fire of falsehoods and bias. Keep your stupid fake notation, its just one more charge against the insanity of this website. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Whether you care or not, I think there is general agreement that the existing GB£ should go, but there is less consensus about what should replace it. I see objections to "sterling" and "stg". What is your objection to GBP? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"GBP" is not a disambiguating abbreviation, it is an ISO code, and all style guides warn against using them. I simply cannot cope with the insanity of this website anymore. Its all a steaming pile of garbage, all my attempts to improve it have been in vain. I have tried oh so very hard, but there is simply no point, it is infected with a chronic case of dumbing down. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheCurrencyGuy: Are you sure? I know of one style guide that reads "If there is no common English abbreviation or symbol, follow the ISO 4217 standard" Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Imperial College London and page 19 of the ILO style guide explicitly advise against using ISO codes in place of currency symbols. On page 139 of the World Bank's style guide they cite "£ [...] stg" as the fully disambiguating abbreviation. Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the full word "sterling" as the suffixed disambiguation in prose, as this example shows

The duke, however, restored it to Prussia in 1834, in return for an annual pension of £12,000 sterling. The area is about 210 sq. m.

TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

However, each organisation makes its own stylistic choices. We can draw on them for inspiration and generally follow the majority but we are not bound by any of them. That would be like saying the Chicago Manual of Style must follow the choices of the ILO.

As a counterpoint for using ISO codes, here's a few professional sites that use them: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/egp.asp , https://www.tripsavvy.com/currency-in-egypt-4581266 and from the UK government https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/egypt/local-laws-and-customs  Stepho  talk  22:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, ISO currency codes were invented to get round problems of keyboard compatibility because few keyboards support all currency signs (very few Western ones are equipped for the yen/yuan sign for example). It is doubtful that every person has every ISO code memorised, and if they do then they probably know what the name of each currency is anyway, so would not be thrown into a state of confusion if they see the word "sterling" or "renminbi", I dislike using them except when absolutely necessary because they often strongly resemble unrelated abbreviations ("GBP" looks an awful lot like "GDP" on first glance because the first and last letters are the same, and GDP is one of the most common financial abbreviations, personally I think the UK should have requested "GBS" or "UKS") and can even confusingly resemble each other (Singapore's is "SGD" and Sudan's is "SDG"). The Swiss franc's code, "CHF", is completely unintuitive to anybody not already familiar with Switzerland's internal nomenclature. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

True, the ISO codes can sometimes be confusing. But no solution is perfect and the exampls given can be understood in context (mentioning something in Sudan and giving Singaporean dollars should make the reader think again). If in doubt, add links to the appropriate currency. We can link "GBP" for those readers that don't know it. Although, to be fair, we can also link "sterling" or "stg", even though I think "sterling" is too long. Curiously, the Swiss government specifies that "CHF" is their preferred usage in international contexts - see https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2000/194/de (point 1e). They also say to use ISO codes in international contexts - see https://www.bk.admin.ch/dam/bk/en/dokumente/sprachdienste/English%20Style%20Guide.pdf.download.pdf/english_style_guide.pdf (page 34 "Currency"). Of course, WP only uses these for inspiration and is not bound by them.  Stepho  talk  06:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe it may be possible to include all the potential codings. The template for the South African rand supports both the standard sign R and the ISO code ZAR. The ISO code is activated with the coding {{ZAR|ISO=yes}}.

After reading some period newspapers from multiple eras and how they notated currency, my preference is for £ as absolute standard (personally I would prefer ₤, but I understand the issues with Unicode compatibility so I'm not going to pursue it), with options for £100 sterling (with or without link) in general prose, £100 stg (again with or without link) in tighter space (such as infoboxes), and the "also ran" option of 100 GBP (with or w/o link).

Page 138 of the World Bank's style guide prefers Sw F as a sign for the Swiss franc (probably because it is more intuitive despite Swiss state preferences), and also suggests £ [...] stg as the fully disambiguating abbreviation for sterling. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The ₤ character is out of the question, this is U+20A4, the Lira sign. The UK does not (and never has) traded in Lira: that's Italy, Turkey and a few others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

We already discussed this on the Italian lira's talk page: there is no evidence that the distinction is anything more than stylistic and its inclusion as a completely separate character is highly dubious. According to this article the only reason it is coded separately is for compatibility with a legacy character set. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I just cannot comprehend why you did no research whatsoever in the first place and invented a WP:HOAX. I have tried extremely hard to find some way of improving this website's coverage. People do not necessarily do their own independent research, they assume because something on Wikipedia has not been deleted yet then it must have some backing, but you just invented "GB£" based on the US dollar's abbreviation and not on any reliably sourced material, and even had the sheer audacity to call it "the standard sign", this is a joke. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Why do you call GBP a "hoax"? As you mentioned above, it's an ISO code; and what is basically wrong with ISO codes in any case? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that the reference is to "GB£", not GBP. But I don't know where anyone anywhere has claimed that GB£ is a "standard sign", audaciously or otherwise. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Scroll down the main template page.

This template renders the standard British Pound sterling currency abbreviation (GB£) and an optional value. The abbreviation provides an informative link to the currency article and can even calculate inflation.

TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

We've said a number of times that we're going to drop "GB£" and replace it with something as soon as we agree can what the something else is. Why do you keep banging on about it being non-standard, a hoax, a steaming pile of garbage, a joke, etc over and over and over like a whining prat? We get it, "GB£" is not staying, let's move on with what it's replacement will be.

Now, moving on, does anybody object to the idea of display £ for the normal case (ie when there is no ambiguity with Egyptian pounds, etc) and something longer for when there might be ambiguity)? We can further discuss what the longer form is but can we at least agree on something?  Stepho  talk  11:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. £ should display as the standard. I am sorry for my frustration. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries. It's a slow process but we'll get there in the end.  Stepho  talk  22:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for the new coding

I examined all of the other currency templates and the codings they use, and found that, yes, there are indeed enough options available to accommodate all of the forms we have been discussing without alienating anybody's preference.

Basic use

{{GBP}} produces £ (simple currency sign)

{{GBP|123.45}} produces £123.45

Basic w/link

{{GBPlink=yes}} produces £ (simple currency article link)

{{GBP|123.45|link=yes}} produces £123.45

Prose disambiguation

{{GBP|123.45|long=yes}} produces £123.45 sterling

{{GBP|123.45|long=yes|link=yes}} produces £123.45 sterling

Abbreviated disambiguation

{{GBP|123.45|long=no}} produces £123.45 stg

{{GBP|123.45|long=no|link=yes}} produces £123.45 stg

ISO code

{{GBP|123.45|ISO=yes}} produces 123.45 GBP

{{GBP|123.45|ISO=yes|link=yes}} produces 123.45 GBP TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

While I was away I spent my time working out suggestions based on this pattern for all the current currency templates. would anyone object if I left the suggestions on each template's talk page? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best to keep discussion in one central location, and leave a note on the individual article pages stating where that discussion is taking place. Is there a suitable project page? If not, the discussion could continue here. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Have done so. Can we please now get this specific template recoded now? It really bothers me that it still produces a non-existent sign instead of a legitimate sign. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

While my preference remains GBP, any of your proposals are an improvement on the status quo. No objection from me. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The above is a set of codings that the template should be able to produce concurrently, including the ISO code if someone wants to use that. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What is your proposal for what the default will be? Since this template is used on over 500 articles, it would be nice if the default setting were compatible with the way people are already using it on those pages, e.g. has enough specificity to distinguish it from non-British pounds. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Well in general it seems that an unqualified £ is generally taken to mean sterling, much in the same way an unqualified $ is taken to mean US dollars and an unqualified

¥ is taken to mean Japanese yen. The yen's template includes no disambiguating display at all, even though the same symbol is used for the Renminbi yuan. Quite a few uses of the template are clearly people who do not have £ as an option on their keyboards, articles where no possible confusion could occur. In the present day the only other currency to use an unqualified £ is the South Sudanese pound, and given the limited international importance of that currency confusion is not likely.

The Egyptian pound sometimes uses the pound sign, but never without the disambiguating abbreviation, thus £E (although LE is more common). The Lebanese pound uses £L or LL, the Syrian pound uses several abbreviations: £S. £Syr, LS, or SP. The major currencies that commonly used unqualified £ signs were those of South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, and these are where confusion can easily arise. The South African pound was always maintained at parity with sterling (save for a brief period in the 1930s), so qualification is not so much of an issue for that currency. The Australian and New Zealand units were more divergent (though the New Zealand pound was more often at par with the sterling pound than the Australian pound was).

Among other currencies descending from sterling; most retained parity so never needed disambiguation (such as the Rhodesian pound, the Zambian pound, the Malawian pound, the Gambian pound and the Ghanaian pound), and some simply ceased to use the pound as a unit of account (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda). I don't think it will be difficult to insert the new coding to display (for example) £10,000 stg in those few cases where there is genuine need for full disambiguation. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think CapitalSasha is asking which of your codings would be the default disambiguation for GBP. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it seems that TheCurrencyGuy is proposing to have the template with no parameters just produce an unadorned £ sign. I suppose this would require going through all of the pages it is used on and checking to make sure that this results in something unambiguous, and adding a parameter if not. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant. I would be happy to do that myself. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That seems fine with me then. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, do we finally have a consensus then? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Just pinging all relevant parties to see if we've at last found the solution.

@CapitalSasha @Dondervogel 2 @Stepho-wrs @Redrose64 @John Maynard Friedman TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody have any final comments? I know it may seem like a minor issue to some, but this issue does frustrate me quite a lot. I would also like to use the new coding as a template for other currency templates so all display a wide range of options. I am unsure what I am doing so cannot develop it myself. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Since "GB£" is now definitively dead and the unqualified "£" sign does not appear to be causing any issues, would it now be possible to adjust the coding in-line with at least some of my suggestions above to give the template more options? It seems the coding technique can support a standard form (simple £), a long form (my suggestion: £100 sterling), a short form (my suggestion: £100 stg) and the ISO code, so offering all of them ought to give editors a good range of options for the specific task at hand.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Doing some experimenting, it seems the templates can only support two forms at a time, I had incorrectly assumed they could support more. Therefore I would like to propose that {{GBP|100}} produce £100 and {{GBP|100|=link}} produce £100 as the default sign. In long form I would propose that {{GBP|100|=long}} produce £100 stg and {{GBP|100|=long|=link}} produce £100 stg if this is possible.

Thanks. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of option to prefix "GB" (to display deprecated style "GB£")

Following revision of MOS:£ last month (to read *** GBP, sterling's ISO 4217 code, should be used to disambiguate that currency from others. Avoid using stg. or GB£.) I have deleted from the documentation for this template information about the parameter |long=yes (which prefixes "GB" before the "£" sign, thus creating the deprecated style).

Unless there are objections, I plan to revise the template itself at a later date, when any implications are identified. I have begun checking articles which use it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Background

It is interesting, nonetheless, that when this template was first created in May 2006, its only purpose was the prefix a number with the GB£ string, as is now deprecated. Despite more than a year of debate (here, at talk:pound sign and at talk:pound sterling), no evidence of provenance has ever been produced, let alone any evidence of general recognition. (It is possible, though this is wild speculation, that it may have been used in Ireland to distinguish the pound sterling from the Irish pound, which was abbreviated as IR£, since both currencies used the £ sign without qualification in their domestic markets.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@JMF: Currency was never my area, but when a lot of the big expansion in the mid-aughts was going on, people were frequently just copying from currency trading websites which often used constructions like GB£ to distinguish from say E£, and also for consistency within columns. These days ISOs are more or less standard, but that was not always the case, especially when such websites first began proliferating in the late 90s when each might have its own peculiar house style.

That said it's had widespread informal use for many decades now, it may have started in storefronts, but can still easily be found in the wild among internet sales listings ebay, tradera etc. (only going to link one example to keep the spam down), it's also trivial to find forum usage (e.g. 1 2).

However, all of this usage is informal. I'll grant that 30 seconds of looking at search listings is hardly thorough, but this is the only example that I saw in a formal document on a brief perusal. It's plausible, indeed probable, that more could be found government documents also sometimes suffer from poor copy-editing. However, I think it unlikely you could find any quality RS that use it except to briefly mention its informal use or as a common typographical error, which is just not DUE for inclusion when condensing and writing in summary style.

However if, and this is a big if, it was ever in widespread use by Irish newspapers, it might be worth footnoting somewhere. Determining that would require non-trivial human effort since most search tools including Google treat symbols as greyspace characters and ignore them, and OCR is notoriously bad when it comes to symbols in the first place. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no significant interest in currencies either, the topic is on the margin of an interest in typography and semiotics. Examples of use are not valid citations. (The ofgem example is rather surprising, even astonishing. Someone's brain not quite in gear, I suspect.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@JMF: agree with all that, well except the last part, just trying to satisfy your idle curiosity on how it came to be Wikipedia's style for so many years. We'll have to agree to disagree on the ofgem stuff, I've seen far worse from government documents. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:CNY which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)