Talk:Lithuania and the euro

A news item involving Lithuania and the euro was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 January 2015.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Numismatics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Lithuania High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Review comments: Renata (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 28 December 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Lithuanian euro coins. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Please discuss at Talk:Euro#Contradiction. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There reads: For images of the common side and a detailed description of the coins, see euro coins.
Well, I actually don't see the national designs either. Maybe there should also be where to see those... 82.141.66.217 (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Maastricht Treaty originally required that all members of the European Union join the euro... Why originally? Has the Treaty been changed? --134.176.204.87 (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The UK and Denmark are not bound by this rule... so, yes, the situation is slightly different.Travelpleb (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The opt-outs of UK and Denmark are part of the Maastricht Treaty. --134.176.204.41 (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone update the convergence criteria data? Thanks.--134.176.205.139 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to, but I don't have a reliable data source for the reference values. So if I tried, it would be removed for being OR. With the current data for August, Lithuania has inflation of 2.0% (Eurostat) with a reference value of about 2.3% (since Greece appears to be outside the benchmark now, it doesn't count anymore). Lithuanian's interest rate would also be in the green. Deficit was projected to be 2.9% in 2013 in the spring report (would also mean green). In about 6 weeks, the autumn report will be out, and we'll get a better projection.

Of course, it would be better if someone with access to better data would post the actual values. Ambi Valent (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to read the table but maybe it is useful: http://www.lb.lt/convergence_criteria_and_their_implementation

--134.176.205.195 (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there newer figures than April 2013? --134.176.204.29 (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The poll is not dated and the source is not available. --134.176.205.246 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erased poll. --134.176.205.246 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source worked for me, but I dug up the original Eurobarometer report and added it to the article. Hopefully this addresses your concern. TDL (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There reads: In February 2013, the government of Lithuania approved a plan for euro adoption in 2015. This would make it the last of the three Baltic States to adopt the euro, after Estonia (2011) and Latvia (2014).
However, Estonia and Latvia have already adopted the euro, while Lithuania has not. It will be the last Baltic country without a doubt. I don't know how to rephrase those sentences. 82.141.73.182 (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's "would" because we technically cannot say for certain that it will happen, so it's like saying that that would make it the last to join if their plans work and it happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.101.21 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Lithuania joins, it will be the last of the Baltic states to do so.

But if it won't join, it is the last remaining Baltic state not to join (as it currently is). 82.141.73.182 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"midnight on 1 January 2015" -- To me, "midnight on X date" means the one second after 11:59:59 P.M. on day X, not one second before 00:01 on day X+1. However, I assume the former is what is being referred to (but only because I don't expect a formal, ceremonial action like this to take place on the second day of a year. Do others read it the way i do? Think about this: "Midnight on New Year's Eve" - Do you really read this to mean the night between Dec. 30 and Dec. 31? 211.225.34.166 (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified it: 00:00 midnight 1 January 2015 = 24:00 on 31 December 2014.

Further information: ISO 8601 § Times

– Kaihsu (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be better as "midnight on the morning of..." or something. I've put that construction in the article. Kahastok talk 16:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Lithuania and the euro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080109031242/http://www.forbes.com:80/markets/feeds/afx/2007/12/04/afx4401809.html to http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/12/04/afx4401809.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Lithuania and the euro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140309112003/https://www.lb.lt/projects_for_lithuanian_euro_coins_already_bear_the_year_2015 to https://www.lb.lt/projects_for_lithuanian_euro_coins_already_bear_the_year_2015
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140820014357/https://www.lb.lt/the_first_lithuanian_euro_coins_are_being_minted_by_order_of_the_bank_of_lithuania_1 to https://www.lb.lt/the_first_lithuanian_euro_coins_are_being_minted_by_order_of_the_bank_of_lithuania_1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the discussion has been closed (at 15:22, 6 January), these points were typed before the closure and may be useful once the matter is reopened at some point in the future:

A number of entries at WP:RM are indeed about main title headers that are not WP:CONSISTENT, which is the key point of contention here. At 08:19, 3 January, above, NotReallySoroka wrote,"However, I think that splitting Lithuanian euro coins into a separate page - and reserving Lithuania and the euro for Lithuania's road to the euro - might be another solution." It would be indeed appreciated if one or more Wikipedians, who specialize in this area, were to create the currently missing 2 entries with titles as listed below:

1. Andorran euro coins (the header of the analogous entry is currently Andorra and the euro, although Andorra is already issuing euro coins)
2. Lithuanian euro coins (the header of the analogous entry is currently Lithuania and the euro, although Lithuania is already issuing euro coins)

If those two entries were to be created, then it would be appropriate to create the currently missing 21 entries with titles as listed below:

1. Austria and the euro
2. Belgium and the euro
3. Cyprus and the euro
4. Estonia and the euro (redirects to Estonian euro coins)
5. Finland and the euro
6. France and the euro
7. Germany and the euro
8. Greece and the euro
9. Ireland and the euro
10. Italy and the euro
11. Latvia and the euro (redirects to Latvian euro coins)
12. Luxembourg and the euro
13. Malta and the euro
14. Monaco and the euro (redirects to Monégasque euro coins)
15. Netherlands and the euro
16. Portugal and the euro
17. San Marino and the euro
18. Slovakia and the euro
19. Slovenia and the euro
20. Spain and the euro
21. Vatican and the euro

Currently only one national entity has two separate English Wikipedia entries (Croatian euro coins / Croatia and the euro). The consistency in article headers (except for the headers Andorra and the euro and Lithuania and the euro) is that the header "Country's euro coins" indicates that the country in question is issuing its own distinct euro coins, while the header "Country and the euro" indicates that the country in question is not currently issuing its own distinct euro coins, but might do so in the future.

Thus, unless the above-proposed articles 1 and 2 along with articles 1 through 21 are created, there is no benefit to leaving the Andorra and Lithuania headers in their current form, which only retains inconsistency and confuses users. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that users are more likely to be confused about why less than 20% of an article called Latvian euro coins, for example, is actually on the topic of Latvian euro coins. Kahastok talk 16:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I do confirm that @Roman Spinner: correctly understood my point of view and why I proposed the moving. Also the proposal to split the page in two different pages might be interesting, but I wonder if there will be "enough texts" to create two pages that can properly/adequately stand on their own --87.9.99.123 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than create new articles and split information apart, expanding the current euro coin articles so their content is more comprehensive would seem the much better option. CMD (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the current euro coin articles so that their content is more comprehensive would be indeed welcome, the already-existing Croatian examples (Croatian euro coins / Croatia and the euro) notwithstanding. Perhaps someone is willing to undertake the task of merging Croatia and the euro into Croatian euro coins.

However, as things stand today, two main title headers in question (Andorra and the euro and Lithuania and the euro) continue to be misleading since such headers are currently only used for national entities that do not issue euro coins.

As an example of this uncertainty, an above comment posits that "users are more likely to be confused about why less than 20% of an article called Latvian euro coins, for example, is actually on the topic of Latvian euro coins". Of course, the article could be expanded to include additional detail on the minting of Latvian euro coins.

However, if the implication is that due to the scarcity of information regarding Latvian euro coins, the main header, Latvian euro coins, is misleading and should be moved to Latvia and the euro, such a move would be even more misleading since Latvia does indeed issue euro coins, unlike all other entities under the header "Country and the euro" (except, of course, for the misleadingly titled Andorra and the euro and Lithuania and the euro). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what is misleading about "X and the Euro" titles. Each country's relationship to the common currency is a topic with coverage in reliable sources. CMD (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "Each country's relationship to the common currency is a topic with coverage in reliable sources" should not be material to WP:CONSISTENT titling, which is understood to be one of the basic tenets of English Wikipedia main headers.

It would seem counterintuitive, for instance to move the header of Latvian euro coins to Latvia and the euro on the basis that less than 20% of that article's content is about euro coins, but not move the French euro coins header to France and the euro because at least 43% of that article's content is about euro coins, without specifying what percentage of euro coin content is sufficient to maintain the euro coins header.

Ultimately, there is a category — Category:Euro coins by issuing country — under which are 24 entries for national entities that issue euro coins. All of those, except two, carry the header "Country's euro coins". The two outliers are, of course, Andorra and the euro and Lithuania and the euro.

There is also the analogous category — Category:Euro by country — under which are 14 entries for national entities that are not members of the eurozone and do not issue euro coins, but will do so or may do so in the future. Thirteen of those (with the exception being the header for the article 2000 Danish euro referendum), carry the header "Country and the euro".

One national entity — Croatia — is under both categories since it has two separate articles — Croatia and the euro and Croatian euro coins, while two — Andorra and the euro and Lithuania and the euro — should not be under this category since those two entities do issue euro coins and, unlike Croatia, contain all their euro coverage under a single article. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that readers would be more confused by seeing a couple of articles that don't conform to some made-up formula, than by seeing an article titled "X euro coins" that is mostly not about coins, is quite a bizarre one to me. To be clear, "Lithuania and the euro" doesn't suddenly not make sense just because the country has adopted the currency. Anyway, the RM above was unsuccessful, and I suggest it's about time to drop some sticks and move on. I think Latvian euro coins and some others should now be moved to follow this one, I would do it as Uncontroversial, but I suspect there might be objections so perhaps I need to start an RM?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that unless and until we create the 21 proposed articles under the (mostly redlinked) headers above (Austria and the euro, Belgium and the euro, etc), per Croatia's example, the headers "Lithuania and the euro" as well as "Andorra and the euro" are not styled in their proper form. Thus, unilateral analogous moves for other such headers would be controversial and should be indeed submitted to RM. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]