Template talk:INRConvert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rupee-dollar conversion[edit]

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)
I concur: the template could output the rupee-dollar conversion for a given date. My reasoning is the following: if I find a dated source, i.e. 1997, I would have problems figuring the meaning of the conversion (inflated, not inflated, actual, which rate, and so on). And putting the actual rate for a 1997 value has no sense. Better do with the 1997 exchange rate, and let the reader know, so he could figure out, according to its knowledge, the significance of the converted value. Stating the 1997 value at the 1997 exchange rate has the advantage of a objective information, no interpretations. Result example: ₹17000 crore (US$5.43 billion - 1997 FX rate) instead of 2,56 at the actual rate. FX rate should be linked Exchange rate. --Robertiki (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I see that in the following discussion, a alternative solution. But I don't agree. Proposal: could we add a parameter to input our conversion rate ? --Robertiki (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Relevancy issue[edit]

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)
Do we convert then inflate or inflate then convert? That is, do we convert from 1997 rupees to 1997 US dollars using 1997 exchange rates then use US inflation rates to get to 2017 dollars (as Suntag seems to be suggesting above) or do we go from 1997 rupees to 2017 rupees using Indian inflation rates and then convert to US dollars using current exchange rates (which seems to be AreJay approach)? I think the latter approach makes more sense and even include the current rupee value. I think that using the local inflation rate gives a better reflexion of what the local currency was worth. AreJay has, as he mentions, made a start on this but it only goes to 2008. It would be good to get some more data (up-to-date data). This would be added to {{inflation}} (as opposed to being internalised here). So you have something like "₹x (equivalent to ₹y or US$z in 2017)". JIMp talk·cont 05:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I have taken AreJay's figures, extended them to Feb 2013 and added them to {{inflation}}. Now the template takes an historic rupee value, applies inflation to get the current rupee equivalent then converts. For example {{INRConvert|950|c|year=1997}} gives "950 crore (equivalent to 34 billion or US$530 million in 2016)". JIMp talk·cont 15:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Great template[edit]

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)

Extra space when US$ is $1 billion or more[edit]

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

  • 10 billion (US$160 million) {{INRConvert|10|b}} - result on my screen is "10 billion (US$981.2 million)"
  • 44 billion (US$690 million) {{INRConvert|44|b}} - result on my screen is "44 billion (US$981.2 million)"
  • 45 billion (US$700 million) {{INRConvert|45|b}} - result on my screen is " 45 billion (US$1 billion)"
  • 100 billion (US$1.6 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)

This strange bug has been fixed in today's rewrite. JIMp talk·cont 16:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Linking the [edit]

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$160 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)

I have added the rupee link. JIMp talk·cont 16:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Outdated[edit]

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. AnkitBhattTalk 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. AnkitBhattTalk 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,  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! AnkitBhattTalk 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? AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 13:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Rs. for nolink[edit]

Why is the old abbreviation (Rs.) still used instead of the currency sign when nolink is turned on? Also, why are million and billion denominators used on a majority of articles instead of crore? Is this WP policy or just because most people don't understand the Indian numbering system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.116.66 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the relevant WP policy, the Indian numbering system should be used. Hack (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I would guess that the subpage for non-linking was overlooked when the new symbol came in. I have fixed this. As noted above, for India-related articles the guideline (not policy) is to use crore and lakh, which, no, most people don't understand (but this is not the place to debate that). The template allows for this. It also allows for millions, billions and trillions, which is reasonable since the template may be used on articles without a strong enough tie to India to warrant these terms. JIMp talk·cont 16:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Unicode symbol[edit]

Please consider using the unicode symbol for rupee rather than the image file. 55 (86¢ US) ₹55, and consider linking the rupee symbol to it's page. 129.118.165.192 (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a few problems at the moment with this symbol until they're sorted out it might be best to stick with the template {{Indian rupee}} call. JIMp talk·cont 16:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

False precision[edit]

Currency translation ought to be just sufficient for readers to appreciate the order of magnitude. I don't know what degree of rounding takes place, but looking at the examples, and the fluctuation in currencies over any period of time, it seems that we ought to default to a number of sf in rounding at one or perhaps two notches lower than it is at present. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've marked the request as answered, as the template is only semi-protected and you should be able to edit it yourself. If you want help with template coding, you might try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates or at WP:VPT. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Too many significant figures give false precision, especially with the way currencies fluctuate, too few can give you an inaccurate conversion. I've rewritten the template making the default to be two significant figures, I reckon that's about just right. JIMp talk·cont 16:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite[edit]

I have rewritten the template. There are a few changes.

  1. As noted above, the strange space after the rupee sign when dealing with billions of rupees is gone.
  2. As noted above also, the new rupee sign, ₹, is used whether you're linking or not.
  3. Again as noted above, the the rupee sign is now linked (except, of course, when linking is off).
  4. "Lakh" is also now linked.
  5. The cent sign has been delinked. Per WP:CONTEXT this should not be linked. Perhaps it was linked to clarify that they were American cents. It's better style to avoid using links for clarification. Now a "US" is there instead.
  6. The "less than 1¢" stuff has been got rid of. 45 paise is less than 1¢, 20 paise is less than 1¢, 7 paise is less than 1¢, 1 paise is less than 1¢ ... This doesn't tell us much. Now we have actual conversions for things less than one cent.
  7. It used to be that anything less than one rupee would be converted to cents (with only three options: 2¢, 1¢ and less than 1¢) and anything more than or equal to one rupee would be converted to dollars but one rupee is only worth about a couple of cents so cents were being very underused. Now anything less than a dollar is converted into cents, e.g. ₹30 is converted to 55¢ rather than $0.55.
  8. Wrapping between the rupee value and the dollar conversion is now allowed for.
  9. There was a quirk in the old code that converted values from ₹4.3699 crore (₹4.3 crore with nolink=yes) to $1,000 million dollars to millions of dollars even though ₹4.3699 crore is less than a million dollars. This only occurred which crores, e.g. {{INRConvert|5|c}} would convert to millions of dollars but {{INRConvert|50|m}} would convert just to dollars, so there was inconsistency there. It was probably an old exchange rate which got fossilised in the template code. This is gone.
  10. The default rounding is now to two significant figures as discussed above.
  11. There are now two digits after a decimal point which separates dollars and cents (unless you ask for more).
  12. Parameter 3 still gives the optional rounding factor but now it works of cents too.

JIMp talk·cont 18:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Two new parameters have been added.

  1. The parameter year accounts for inflation.
  2. The parameter to allows for conversion to other currencies besides US (combinations are also possible).

JIMp talk·cont 15:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Pluralisation[edit]

There seems to be some disagreement about how to pluralise. Until April the template did not pluralise anything. Raghusri did the honours of fixing this problem. I thank you, Raghusri, for that, however, I have two problems with the way you approached this.

  • Adding "(s)" (as in "paise(s)") is okay when we don't know how many of the thing we are dealing with but in this case we do. It's much better style to add "s" (no brackets) if and only if we have a number that is not one (ignore negative numbers). We can do this. For example, if <nowiki>{{{1}}}</nowiki> is the number of rupees, the code <nowiki>{{#ifexpr:{{{1|0.01}}}!=0.01|s}}</nowiki> can be used to add "s" whenever we have more than one paise.
  • I don't agree that the words "thousand", "lakh", "million", "crore", "billion", etc. should be pluralised here. 3,000 is three thousand rupees. It's rupees which you have more than one of, pluralise "rupee" not "thousand" (but, of course, we don't need to pluralise a symbol).
code current version sandbox version Raghusri's version my version
{{INRConvert|0.01}} 1 paisa (0.016¢ US) 1 paisa (0.016¢ US) 1 paise(s) (0.018¢ US) 1 paise (0.018¢ US)
{{INRConvert|0.05}} 5 paise (0.078¢ US) 5 paise (0.078¢ US) 5 paise(s) (0.092¢ US) 5 paises (0.092¢ US)
{{INRConvert|0.20}} 20 paise (0.31¢ US) 20 paise (0.31¢ US) 20 paise(s) (0.37¢ US) 20 paises (0.37¢ US)
{{INRConvert|1}} 1 (1.6¢ US) 1 (1.6¢ US) 1 (1.8¢ US) 1 (1.8¢ US)
{{INRConvert|30}} 30 (47¢ US) 30 (47¢ US) 30 (55¢ US) 30 (55¢ US)
{{INRConvert|1|k}} 1,000 (US$16) 1,000 (US$16) 1,000 (US$18) 1,000 (US$18)
{{INRConvert|30|k}} 30,000 (US$470) 30,000 (US$470) 30,000 (US$550) 30,000 (US$550)
{{INRConvert|1|l}} 1 lakh (US$1,600) 1 lakh (US$1,600) 1 lakh(s) (US$1,800) 1 lakh (US$1,800)
{{INRConvert|3|l}} 3 lakh (US$4,700) 3 lakh (US$4,700) 3 lakh(s) (US$5,500) 3 lakh (US$5,500)
{{INRConvert|1|m}} 1 million (US$16,000) 1 million (US$16,000) 1 million(s) (US$18,000) 1 million (US$18,000)
{{INRConvert|3|m}} 3 million (US$47,000) 3 million (US$47,000) 3 million(s) (US$55,000) 3 million (US$55,000)
{{INRConvert|1|c}} 1 crore (US$160,000) 1 crore (US$160,000) 1 crore(s) (US$180,000) 1 crore (US$180,000)
{{INRConvert|10|c}} 10 crore (US$1.6 million) 10 crore (US$1.6 million) 10 crore(s) (US$1.8 million) 10 crore (US$1.8 million)
{{INRConvert|1|b}} 1 billion (US$16 million) 1 billion (US$16 million) 1 billion(s) (US$18 million) 1 billion (US$18 million)
{{INRConvert|30|b}} 30 billion (US$470 million) 30 billion (US$470 million) 30 billion(s) (US$550 million) 30 billion (US$550 million)
{{INRConvert|1|t}} 1 trillion (US$16 billion) 1 trillion (US$16 billion) 1 trillion(s) (US$18 billion) 1 trillion (US$18 billion)
{{INRConvert|30|t}} 30 trillion (US$470 billion) 30 trillion (US$470 billion) 30 trillion(s) (US$550 billion) 30 trillion (US$550 billion)

My version is currently in the sandbox. JIMp talk·cont 06:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! First of all i thank you for opening a discussion, because many users are not doing this, rather than they are engaging in edit war. It's nice to see. What you said is right. According to the above two points, do as your wish. Carry on :) Regards, Raghusri (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It is always best to discuss, edit warring is a dead-end. I'm going ahead & putting the sandbox version onto the page. It was good to have this chat. JIMp talk·cont 04:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Paise is already plural, like the British pence. The singular form is paisa. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. The template should probably be fixed to cover this. JIMp talk·cont 08:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comma in the year[edit]

The template at present displays "2,013" as the year. Is it possible to have it display without the comma, ie: "2013" ? - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the sandbox version might be working correctly. I'm heading off for a bit so I can't really look at the differences between the current live version and the sandbox but I can check when I get back. In the meantime, would you mind looking at the sandbox to see if that output looks correct? Ravensfire (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I had already tried {{INRConvert|3750|c|year=2001|to=USD EUR GBP}} in the sandbox and it produced the same odd format there. It was remiss of me not to mention this. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Gah, I'm an idiot. I should have pointed you towards the testcases page which shows how the main template appears and how the version in the sandbox appears using the same inputs. There are some differences between the two pages but I think the sandbox version is showing the year correctly in the various possible configurations. Take a look at that testcases page and see what you think. Ravensfire (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
From a quick look, I think the problem is the template is trying to format the year as it would a currency amount, hence the , after the 2 in 2013. Assuming I'm right, it's "just" a case of finding that spurious conversion and removing it from the template code. That's easier said that done, alas, but definitely doable with some time. Probably not something I can do today but by tomorrow or Wednesday. I compared the main template code and the sandbox code and there are a fair number of differences that I think were intended to simplify / improve the performance of the template. Without a significant review, I'm quite leery about just copying the sandbox over to the main template. Alas, that would be a simple fix if there was only the single change but it's more than that. Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I wondered whether it was a currency format issue but there is no way that I am messing about with templates. My typo rate is rocketing at the moment - dodgy keyboard, even more dodgy meds. If you or someone else can find the time to hunt this one down and fix it then it would be appreciated. OTOH, leaving it as it is will not stop the world from spinning. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. Jimp 09:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Wikipedia's "customer service" shines again. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Spam?[edit]

Okay I don't know much about templates but yesterday while patrolling I came across this in the Indian railways page. For about 20 minutes in this template's output "{{INRConvert|1}} || 1 (1.6¢ US) ", there was an 'USD' term and it was an external link to http://www.filmznews.com/! It was restored back to normal but I have no idea what happened, couldn't find anything and the history section of this template (and the article) is undisturbed. Anybody else noticed this and can explain? It happened around 18:30 UTC 17 August. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

it was reverted here. Frietjes (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
So that's where it was, that too for a day...thanks for your help. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

New variant based on this template[edit]

Would it be possible to create a new template based on a stripped-down version of this? What is required is something that converts between the Western (million etc) and Indian (crore etc) counting systems. No need for inflation, currency symbols/conversion etc - just plain numbers. The purpose is to attempt avoidance of problems that occur in relation to MOS:TIES when using the relatively unfamiliar Indian system - too many people are tempted to remove commas from valid numbers such as 1,00,00,000. - Sitush (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

could extend {{INR}} to do this, just have to cleanup the use of the undocumented |1=, which is probably not widely used. once that is done, it would be a simple extension. Frietjes (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I might be missing something here but {{INR}} seems just to add the currency symbol for a rupee. What is needed is a conversion function that accepts a number in western format and returns one in Indian crore or lakh format. And and vice versa.

1 crore is 100 lakh and 1 lakh is 100,000 (but they'd write 100,000 as 1,00,000). Imagine a template like this:

  • {{INumConvert|1|crore|decimal|abbreviation=on|wikilink=on}} would produce the string "1 crore (10 million)"
  • {{INumConvert|10,000,000|decimal|crore|abbreviation=on|wikilink=off}} would produce the string "10m (1 crore)"
  • {{INumConvert|10|lakh|decimal|abbreviation=off|wikilink=on}} would produce the string "10 lakh (1 million)"
Sure, having the ability to turn on/off the rupee symbol would be a bonus but {{INR}}it can be prefixed anyway. These figures are used a lot in non-finance situations, eg: population, attendance at protests etc (yep, they have a lot of protests and a lot of people attend!) I'll have to find an example of where the extended strings (1,00,00,000 etc) appear but they do and they have caused issues. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not explaining this very well - let me have a think. - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought you were asking for a variant of this template that produces the first part, but without the conversion in parenthesis, but perhaps you are asking for something else? yes, the {{INR}} template only does one thing at the moment, which is why I suggested extending it to do more. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that such a template would be a great idea. In fact, we could have three subtemplates:
  • {{INSConvert}}, which would convert between short scale, long scale and the Indian numbering system, e.g. lakh to million or vice versa
  • {{INRInflation}}, which would calculate the inflated value in a particular year, given the value in a previous year, e.g., 500 in 1998 was equivalent to ??? in 2002
  • a variant where it would convert it into another currency, and display the inflated value based on the inflation of that currency (which may be more relevant in some contexts).
Then {{INRConvert}} could transclude those templates, which would also make the code a bit more modular and hopefully easier to maintain. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
{{Inflation}} already calculates the inflated value in a particular year given the value in a previous year for various currencies including the Indian rupee. {{INRConvert}} does transclude {{Inflation}} to inflate a value before converting it.
As for the South Asian style of placing commas, this is not valid on WP according to WP:MOSNUM.
A template to convert between "lakh"/"crore" and English seems a little useless. In general it would merely serve to add unnecessary clutter. Just use the words English speakers in general are familiar with, i.e., don't use "lakh" and "crore". In the rare case where "lakh" and/or "crore" would be appropriate, just convert by hand. Using lakh and crore on {{INRConvert}} is a bit of an exception since the whole thing is converted into dollars (pounds, euros, etc.) so the clutter is there anyway.
Note that {{INSConvert}} in its current form isn't that template but a number reformatter ... which has lain idle for almost a year and should be deleted on ground of being unuseful. Jimp 14:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect conversion[edit]

{{INRConvert|90|l|year=2013}} provides an inflated value of 1.9 crore that is not correct. It should give 90 lakh. Example: 90 lakh (equivalent to 1.1 crore or US$170,000 in 2016). --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any ideas on what might be causing this? Could it be Template:Inflation/IN/dataset? --Joshua Issac (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Jimp 08:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The inflated value for crore seems to be ten times what it should be; {{INRConvert|90|c|year=2013}} produces 90 crore (equivalent to 900 crore or US$15 million in 2014) [e.g. 90 crore (equivalent to 107 crore or US$17 million in 2016)]. It works correctly for lakh, trillion, etc. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Now it says: 90 crore (equivalent to Bad rounding hereFormatting error: invalid input when rounding or US$Bad rounding hereFormatting error: invalid input when rounding in 2014})].
I've copied the table below from the section below and changed the arguments to the currency_formatting parameter to show which arguments are causing the problematic output:
Input Output
{{INRConvert|75|l|year=2013}}

75 lakh (equivalent to 89 lakh or US$140,000 in 2016)

{{INRConvert|75|c|year=2013}}

75 crore (equivalent to 89 crore or US$14 million in 2016)

{{INRConvert|75|c}}

75 crore (US$12 million)

{{INRConvert|75|lc|year=2013}}

75 lakh crore (equivalent to 89 trillion or US$1.4 trillion in 2016)

The lakh and lakh crore formats are fine, but the template does not like it when the argument is c. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed by adding a missing closing }. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The conversion issue was fixed by correcting the divisor exponents at Template:INRConvert/inflation/b. It had been 6, when it should have been 7. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Lakh Crore[edit]

Firstly its a great template, thanks. Now coming to a small issue, the total planned expenditure of Govt of India for Defense services for year 2013 was 2.03 lakh crore (see 2013 Union budget of India) but template conversion do not support such nomenclature, it supports 'Trillion' but not 'Lakh Crore' though both are same (1 trillion equals 1 lakh crore) but later is the term used in India when talking about huge sums of money. Can we have 'Lakh Crore' as another optional currency_formatting parameter. Thanks. IndianGeneralist 12:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Jimp 07:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting error occurs[edit]

Could somebody solve this issue?

Input Output
{{INRConvert|75|k|year=1931}}

75,000 (US$1,200)

{{INRConvert|75|k|year=1952}}

75,000 (US$1,200)

{{INRConvert|75|k|year=1953}}

75,000 (equivalent to 5.5 million or US$87,000 in 2016)

I think the problem is the dataset used for inflation starts at 1953. It can't handle converting anything from before that year. Sorry. Ravensfire (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ravensfire: Hope you tried your level best. Thanks for putting in effort. I hope somebody could address the issue. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support) 18:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jimp: could probably fix it, just need to check to see if year is greater than the value returned by {{Inflation/IN/startyear}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, wonder what to display if the year is earlier? Probably just skip that entire section, I guess. Plus add to the documentation what will happen if you put a year that's too early. Ravensfire (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The best solution, of course, would be to add years before 1953 but in the meantime (or failing that altogether) it would probably be best to just ignore these (as suggested). Jimp 09:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I tried to find the data on the site mentioned in the dataset, but nothing. I'll see what I can find (and noticed that the change you made looks for the startyear, not hardcoded). The challenge is the dataset put 1953 at 100. Ravensfire (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "The challenge is the dataset put 1953 at 100." Jimp 10:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
With most inflation datasets, some date is picked as the base and set to 100. That's often the first year of the dataset. So I may be able to find another inflation dataset but if it uses different values it will take some testing to see if it works. That was the point I was trying (poorly) to make. Ravensfire (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
If I'm reading Indian rupee right, the earliest possible date for the start year for inflation should be 1835. Do we have a dataset going back that far? Even if not, we could probably reconstruct it based on various sources like [1]. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay - I'll take a look there this evening. Thanks for finding that! Ravensfire (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ravensfire, @Frietjes, @Jimp & @Joshua Issac: Any progress in this issue pals? --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support) 23:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I am not sure about the others, but I have not made any progress on this, I am afraid. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Crore and Lakh instead of million and billion[edit]

Please use Crore and Lakh instead of million and billion when the amount is in Indian Rupee as Indians are more familiar with the former.nijil (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't written especially for Indians (nor for Pakistanis, Bangladeshis nor Nepalis) even articles written about South Asian topics should be accessible to a general audience. If you can read English to a decent level, you'll know what a million, billion, etc. is, but most don't understand what lakhs or crores are. Jimp 05:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Non indians, as I, may not understand Crore or Lakh, but they understand the converted value. And Crore or Lakh are linked. --Robertiki (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually this is not an issue with the template at all. The template allows the user to choose crore/lakh or million/billion for the input. It doesn't force one or the other but gives editors the freedom to determine which is more appropriate for the article. If it were forcing one or the other, though, it would be better to choose the more widely understood English words over Hindi ones, but it isn't. Jimp 14:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
it would be better to choose the more widely understood English words over Hindi ones
Lakh and crore are English words. —Wiki Wikardo 11:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't written especially for Indians (nor for Pakistanis, Bangladeshis nor Nepalis)
Nor is it written especially for Americans, Australians, Nigerians or Norwegians. Lakh and crore are perfectly valid words. The average American won’t know what a bakkie or pram is, but that doesn’t mean articles dealing with South African or British topics should be rewritten to cater to them (I’m curious who, exactly, you imagine a “general” audience to consist of).
Obviously international terms are preferred, but Indian English is as valid a variety as any other, and I’d think WP:TIES is relevant here. I would greatly appreciate the option to denominate the converted-to currency in lakhs or crores. —Wiki Wikardo 11:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
What Jimp (talk · contribs) said is actually incredibly patronising, but it is symptomatic of the bias against India in Western circles. Wikipedia does not exist to serve the cultural sensibilities of Western readers. Articles on WP:IND are written in Indian English - this is explicitly stated on almost every talk page of India-related articles. An encyclopaedia is, after all, for documenting things as they are - if they cannot understand the nomenclature used in other countries, they should make an effort to learn it. cc: Wiki Wikardo (talk · contribs) | Tiger7253 (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


I have nothing against India or its people. It has nothing to do with serving cultural sensibilities; it's a matter of comprehensibility. Sure, absolutely, write in Indian English where appropriate but "million", "billion", etc. are valid in Indian English, so why not use these terms which we all can understand? Anyway, it's a waste of time arguing this here: the MOS is clear on this point.

Prefer vocabulary common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.

Jimp 06:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That particular example about ten million vs crore was added to the MoS by a single editor, not by consensus. Either way, when discussing sums of money, lakhs and crores are used almost exclusively, so there is no commonality in using millions and billions instead. ENGVAR suggests using the national variety that is appropriate for the context. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking[edit]

I propose to change the default such that the template does not link automatically but links would have to be specified. When used several times in an article, this template produces a huge number of redundant links unless editors take the time to add the extra code to turn them off. Jimp 05:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The parameter nolink has been replaced by lk. The new parameter allows more versatility, e.g. now you can link the rupee symbol and not the word "lakh" or vice versa. Jimp 15:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Help[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I noticed that the conversion does not work after year 2013 (check values here). Can someone please look into this? Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 20:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to update Template:Inflation/IN/dataset to include years after 2013. I don't know a source for the required inflation data, though. Huon (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Huon, I have sent a message to the creator of that template asking for the source. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

When year is the current year[edit]

I recently noticed an oddity created by this template on RLV-TD. This is a new article which transcludes this template. The year parameter was set to 2016 ready for future inflation. The problem was that it was inflating the 2016 figure to a 2016 figure and then converting. Of course, that's a 0% increase in zero years but the rupee figure was still given twice. So, we had "₹95 crore (equivalent to ₹95 crore or US$14.1 million in 2016)". There's no need to add inflation if year is the current year. In this example, the output should simply be "₹95 crore (US$14.1 million)" untill next year. This has been fixed. Jimp 15:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Feature proposal[edit]

Hey, not sure who's running this ship anymore, but if nobody responds soonish, I'll just ask someone at the Village Pump. The |year= parameter allows us to use this template and adjust for inflation, but there's a growing dispassion for the forced conversion of Indian Rupees to US Dollars. Is there any way to set a switch to turn off the US conversion? Currently:

{{INRConvert|180|c|year=1990}}

yields

180 crore (equivalent to 12 billion or US$190 million in 2016)

I'm proposing we do something like:

{{INRConvert|180|c|year=1990|US=no}}

to produce

₹180 crore (equivalent to ₹12 billion in 2016)

Previous discussions about the utility of INRConvert in Indian film articles has come up here and here, and some editors feel the US conversion promotes US bias, and the default output for the inflation conversion is needlessly verbose. So there is some community need behind my request.

And as a general note, if the input is in crore, maybe the output should be in crore as well, and if the input is millions or billions, the output should be in millions or billions.

Thanks in advance, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This is controlled by the to parameter, whose default argument is USD. What we need is a none argument for this parameter that results in no conversion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
To add to that, I do not support removing the converted US dollar amount in general (because the guidelines say that we need to have a converted amount to a well-known currency if the amount is not in one), but I can see that there are cases where it necessary to have the amount only in Indian rupees (for example, if the converted amount is in another column). This is not about being US-centric, as other major currencies such as the euro are also appropriate for this. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Joshua Issac, I appreciate your feedback. The population of India is about 1.3 billion, or 1/6 of the global population. I would argue that makes the Indian Rupee quite well-known, far moreso than the Swedish Kroner example used at WP:$. (Population of Sweden is 9.8 million). That said, I'm not proposing the removal of any functionality. I'm proposing: allow users to suppress the conversion to another currency, while still allowing for the inflation calculation in rupees. The practical application of this is at List of highest-grossing Indian films. If an editor wants to add an "Adjusted for inflation" column, we're going to have two columns needlessly bloated by US dollar conversions. Another example might be here. If you look in the budget/gross parameters of the infobox, that's an awful lot of information to display in a small space. The second thing I'm proposing, is that if the input value is in "crore" (1 crore of apples = 10,000,000 apples) then the output value should be in crore, not in millions/billions. If the input value is in millions/billions, the output should be in millions/billions. This is for basic parallel structure. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Looking at this again, I believe you can use {{Inflation}} to handle this issue without the need for conversions. If you want to inflate 10 crore rupees with the Inflation template, supply just 10 to it and add crore after the template, instead of using this template.
As for including a converted amount, it is not just about population of the country that issues the currency, but who else uses it as well, internationally. {{Most traded currencies}} shows that the Swedish crown is traded twice as much by value as the Indian rupee. So if even the Swedish crown requires conversion, then the Indian rupee requires it as well, since it would be even less familiar to the average reader than the crown. This is why the manual of style says converted figures should be provided. --Joshua Issac (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)