Template talk:Exchange rate

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Henryguide (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 25 May 2020 (→Reply/Second RfC about returning Currency.wiki back to exchange rate template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:23, 25 May 2020 by Henryguide (talk | contribs) (→Reply/Second RfC about returning Currency.wiki back to exchange rate template)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Exchange rate template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 40 days

Numismatics Template‑class

	Numismatics portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Misplaced Pages. 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
Template	This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Exchange rate template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 40 days

Per discussion below (#Principle of quoting exchange rate on an arbitrary date) and at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Numismatics, exchange rate snapshot has been removed. For its old instruction, see .

RfC about returning Currency.wiki back to exchange rate template

Should www.currency.wiki be restored to the exchange rate template? --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Background

I discovered www.currency.wiki through Misplaced Pages around the beginning of 2016 when researching Pound sterling and a few other currencies, and now it is missing from the template. After reading on https://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Exchange_rate, I notice it was caught in the middle of edit war, when removing transferwise.com and transfermate.com on 09:49, 19 September 2016‎ https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Exchange_rate&diff=740146505&oldid=738657073 Personally, I think both are credible sources, so I'm not sure why the user stated "low value added sites removed" and removed both sites along with currency.wiki. I also agree with Maxl (talk · contribs) that the decision to delete these sites was based on personal opinion. User Tomdavis1 (talk · contribs) was trying to get edits reverted but did not get a consensus before requesting an edit. So I would like to present a reasonable use-case to reach a consensus to return currency.wiki. If you have an option to visit this website, you'll notice how fast it loads, clean, responsive, and how easy to select different currencies and convert instantly by inputting the numeric values. In other words, meaningful and relevant experiences to users, including aspects of design, function, and usability plus a very helpful option to select a decimal separator and thousands separator when converting. For example, US currency is formatted with a decimal point as a separator between the dollars and cents. Other countries use a comma instead of decimal to indicate that separation. If you check the snapshot https://henrysdoc.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/2020-03-17_12-26-13.png or visit the website and try it yourself, you'll agree that this is a very helpful feature, and it will benefit Misplaced Pages users from other countries and help them display conversion in a specific format. Unfortunately, listed currency conversion sites like Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, XE, etc... do not have this feature, so let's return currency.wiki back to https://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Exchange_rate. Thank you for reading and help me reach a positive consensus. Please keep in mind that simply reverting original currency.wiki edits back into the template will not work since its using a new HTTPS secured URL structure, and it has to be added manually; please follow the visual instructions here https://henrysdoc.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/visual+code+placement.png and the code https://henrysdoc.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/COPY+CODE.txt if consensus has been reached. Best regards! Henryguide (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Comment I would be happy to support this proposal if (and only if) one the existing lines is deleted. Although there is no record of a formal consensus that no more that four services should be given, the history of additions and subtractions shows that to be the stable number. The table should never be so large as to dominate the article that invokes it. So IMO, one of the existing lines needs first to be nominated for deletion in favour of this one, with a reason why it is inferior. --Red King (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Support And let me add, no there must not be any conditions ("only if") for the return of Currency Wiki. And who says four is a "stable number"? Have you got any proof for that. I am under the impression that conditions like the above are often made in order to prevent proposed changes without having to say so directly. Therefore I strongly oppose any conditions to be made in addition to the proposal of returning currency wiki to the template. --Maxl (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Henryguide: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,700 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64 and Henryguide: I've supplied a brief neutral signed question for the RfC. I sincerely don't believe it can impact the opinions of the commentators so far. Hopefully Logobot will be happy now and the RfC will get the publicity it deserves. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that worked. Thank you, RexxS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Meta discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry, pal, you're WAY WAY besides the point. Why don't you rather answer to the arguments instead of trying to depreciate them as being "too long"? It seems you are trying to put off this motion by formalities! There is NOTHING AT ALL wrong with the motion and the statement! Everyone here seems to be intent on avoiding to answer to the actual arguments which means they are, obviously, too good to contradict and that's why mere formalities are cited. --Maxl (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC) @Maxl: The above is a standardized message that Redrose64 delivers to any RfC over the character limit. It's purely concerning the technical aspects of the RfC, and not any comment on the content. {{u\|Sdkb}}  04:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC) You are catering exactly to my point. He shouldn't deliver standard messages, he should answer to the arguments! Using boilerplate text is, of course much easier than answering to the actuall arguments but it's usually unhelpful and besides the point and shows that the writer isn't actually interested in answering to the arguments but wants to be finished quickly. --Maxl (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC) I am not going to "answer to the arguments" because, frankly, I don't care about the issue at hand. I also don't want it to be "finished quickly", but I do want it to be given its fair amount of publicity, just like the other 70 or so current RfCs have been given. If you look at the box at the top of this section, the one beginning "An editor has requested comments from other editors", you will see that it has a link to Misplaced Pages proposals; follow that link and you arrive at a page listing five RfCs each beginning with a link. Four of the five links are followed by a statement, signature and a timestamp; but the last one (which is the link right back here to Template talk:Exchange rate) has neither statement, signature nor timestamp. This is because Legobot (talk · contribs) - which builds Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals and similar pages - cannot parse this RfC to find those items, and this is because there is too much text before the first timestamp. Referring back to the "Misplaced Pages proposals" RfC list, one of them - by RexxS (talk · contribs) - is just six words long; I'm not asking you to go that far, but it does show just how brief an RfC statement can be made with some careful thought. I'm also not asking for neutrality, because Legobot, being a bot, cannot distinguish a neutral statement from a biased one. All I am asking is that you provide a shorter statement so that Legobot is able to process it, and therefore be able to publicise it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Meta discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sorry, pal, you're WAY WAY besides the point. Why don't you rather answer to the arguments instead of trying to depreciate them as being "too long"? It seems you are trying to put off this motion by formalities! There is NOTHING AT ALL wrong with the motion and the statement! Everyone here seems to be intent on avoiding to answer to the actual arguments which means they are, obviously, too good to contradict and that's why mere formalities are cited. --Maxl (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Maxl: The above is a standardized message that Redrose64 delivers to any RfC over the character limit. It's purely concerning the technical aspects of the RfC, and not any comment on the content. {{u|Sdkb}}  04:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You are catering exactly to my point. He shouldn't deliver standard messages, he should answer to the arguments! Using boilerplate text is, of course much easier than answering to the actuall arguments but it's usually unhelpful and besides the point and shows that the writer isn't actually interested in answering to the arguments but wants to be finished quickly. --Maxl (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not going to "answer to the arguments" because, frankly, I don't care about the issue at hand. I also don't want it to be "finished quickly", but I do want it to be given its fair amount of publicity, just like the other 70 or so current RfCs have been given.

If you look at the box at the top of this section, the one beginning "An editor has requested comments from other editors", you will see that it has a link to Misplaced Pages proposals; follow that link and you arrive at a page listing five RfCs each beginning with a link. Four of the five links are followed by a statement, signature and a timestamp; but the last one (which is the link right back here to Template talk:Exchange rate) has neither statement, signature nor timestamp. This is because Legobot (talk · contribs) - which builds Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals and similar pages - cannot parse this RfC to find those items, and this is because there is too much text before the first timestamp.

Referring back to the "Misplaced Pages proposals" RfC list, one of them - by RexxS (talk · contribs) - is just six words long; I'm not asking you to go that far, but it does show just how brief an RfC statement can be made with some careful thought. I'm also not asking for neutrality, because Legobot, being a bot, cannot distinguish a neutral statement from a biased one. All I am asking is that you provide a shorter statement so that Legobot is able to process it, and therefore be able to publicise it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment I have no opinion one way or another regarding the substance of the proposal. However, I agree with Redrose64 that the opening statement should be brief and neutral, and that the current opening statement should be revised. Also, Maxl, please be calm and read the information that is at the link that Redrose64 provided. Thanks. ↠Pine (✉) 06:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment

@QEDK:@QEDK: I presented a reasonable use-case per your suggestion but not getting anywhere? Please advice. Thanks!

@Redrose64:@Redrose64:@Pine: I'm not Misplaced Pages savvy, so that is why I've asked for guidance from other Misplaced Pages experts, please check the history. I followed similar steps as "Vallery Nurse" to reverse edits for FXTOP, how did that census got approved? but making me jump through hoops when I made a similar request by presenting a reasonable use-case to return the edits for currency.wiki. Please scroll to the bottom and read https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template_talk:Exchange_rate&diff=934030155&oldid=933930360 Second time, Red King was trying to help, but I guess he was wrong. From this point on, I'm honestly confused. Henryguide (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 March 2020: Fix WP:EL violation

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The links in the first column violate WP:ELNO #13 ("the link should be directly related to the subject of the article", i.e. the specific currency) and should be removed. While we are at it, replacing them with wikilinks to the articles about these websites has the additional benefit of offering the reader independent encyclopedic context information about the remaining seven or eight subject-specific links to that site. In detail:

Change

From Google Finance

From Google Finance

Change

From Yahoo! Finance

From Yahoo! Finance

Change

From XE

From XE.com

Change

From OANDA

From OANDA

Change

From fxtop.com

From fxtop.com

Thanks!

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@HaeB:

Done - Evad37 06:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

ThanksMascarponette (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Second RfC about returning Currency.wiki back to exchange rate template

The tag was removed but clearly states "When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list." there was no discussion nor expiration date, or am I missing something? Henryguide (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Henryguide: Please don't use the {{rfc}} tag to ask for help (see WP:RFCNOT). When asking for assistance on something that has occurred (presumably a tag of some kind being removed), it's best to provide a diff of the edit or edits in question.

If you really think that you need an RfC, please read WP:RFCBEFORE carefully and follow the directions at WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Ahh, got it! I was just going through my messages on Talk page. So how do I create a "succinct summary" is there an example?

So can you or anyone explain why Fxtop.com was reverted back so quickly? via request https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template_talk:Exchange_rate&diff=934032676&oldid=934030155 and reverted by https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Exchange_rate&diff=934030073&oldid=929964724

Please don't archive this post until it is squared away. Henryguide (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

What is this "succinct summary" for?

As regards reverts, have you asked the person who made the revert? Your first diff shows an edit by Valerie Nurse (talk · contribs), your second an edit by QEDK (talk · contribs). Only the second of these is a revert.

I'm not going to archive anything. That's up to lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which is configured to archive threads after 40 days of inactivity. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It was reverted because there was a use-case for the link - I spoke to Coffee (the person I reverted) and they agreed with it as well, nothing more complicated. :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I apologize, that message was not towards you, I was saying in general whoever was archiving my posts. Even though you've stated that its bot and usually after 40 days of inactivity but sounds like it happened again. Henryguide (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: Thank you for your prompt reply but, what's wrong with my use-case? Henryguide (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop archiving my questions

This is the issue with Misplaced Pages contributors, absolutely not fair. Whoever is doing this, PLEASE STOP archiving my posts. I'll continue to ask this questions until there is a fair answer.

Categories: