Template talk:Euro

"Formal" members - better word choice?
Now the Euro is used de facto by some countries without explicit EU approval though the EU seems to be mostly fine with that implicitly (I am sure Kosovo would have nothing against the might of the European Union were they to ever force the issue), but there is at least one immediately obvious difference between "official" Euro users and "other" Euro user - the former issue coins (I think Andorra was the last one that didn't until quite recently). But it might be argued that the distinction is more legally relevant than travel relevant, but if it is made, maybe "formal" is not the best word - so what would be the best word? Do remember that this template is copied into almost thirty articles, so even supposedly minor tweaks have an effect (to say nothing of potential SEO influence either way) Edited to add: Given that the previous wording put the European microstates and Montenegro/Kosovo into the same category (to which they don't belong in any sense) I have now changed the template to have three categories instead. If you think this is over-complicated, do argue your case here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I like your change. To me, either you're a member or the euro or not. The countries that use the euro and aren't members, aren't members.
 * I would make the same comment about "official" approval. Either a country has approval or it doesn't. "official": is just an extra word that doesn't add meaning. "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out." - George Orwell Ground Zero (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I do think there is such a thing as "tacit" approval, which may in effect be the same as official approval but the distinction is often made in diplomatic circles as if it mattered more than anything else on earth. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Exchange rate euros
Should the Template:Exchange rate euros (shown on the right) be included on the € template?  Seagull123  Φ  15:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Both templates are on all of the country articles for counties that use the euro, so if you combine them onto the euro template, you'd have to remove the Exchange rate euros template from those articles.
 * I don't see the advantage in doing so, but I don't object to it either. Ground Zero (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * My reason for asking was because they are both used on the country pages, so why have two different templates talking about the same thing? I do agree with you both though, that there isn't any massive benefit in doing this.  Seagull123  Φ  21:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I consider it inelegant to contain a template within another template. However, maybe we should include what is currently mentioned in "exchangerateuro" into this here template? I don't know; just thinking aloud. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the two template solution now in effect looks good. Although the templates are used in the same sections they are about different things, and if they are combined there should probably be some delimiter anyway, which may not look better than the current delimiting space. One of the templates could also find use somewhere where the other info is less relevant. --LPfi (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Commemorative coins
Is the information on commemorative coins really relevant to travellers? Especially the info on 10 euro coins - there is no chance a traveller actually might encounter these (I've never seen any as a local). To me, this information seems only relevant to numismatists. Math1985 (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The two Euro commemorative coins are common enough to elicit a "huh, the backside of this coin looks strange" reaction. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. And although the other commemorative coins indeed are relevant to numismatists, the wording is quite compact and mentioning them makes the section complete. Unless we have a more complete discussion elsewhere, I think they should be included. One could of course leave all details to the European Union article, perhaps having the two euro commemorative coins handled as a short sentence on normal coins (headlined "coins"). --LPfi (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I add my vote to only leaving the details on commemorative coins to European Union. Having two huge paragraphs on them in every article of european country sounds an overkill for me. --DenisYurkin (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I moved the bullet list to European Union, along with the country list. The bullet points and the prior text should be consolidated, but I am not sure how to do that in the best way. --LPfi (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Reconsidering the templates
I was just editing Latvia and found myself wondering why there is a list of all of the counties that use the euro there. It seems to be only tangentially related to travelling in Latvia. It seems to be telling me that if I have euros left over after my trip to Latvia, here are other countries I can spend them in. We wouldn't have a list of countries that use the same voltage, would we? Or a list of all that countries that use French, or Spanish or KiSwahili. Ground Zero (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Here is the infobox:


 * As there's been no response, I'll specifically proper to remove this infobox from country articles since country articles are often packed with relevant info. Ground Zero (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. The EU article lists which member states use the euro if anyone really wants to know, and in any case I can't see anyone choosing to visit Montenegro or Kosovo from Latvia (or any other eurozone country), just because the money is the same. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that it is worth considering this from the viewpoint of a traveller who has never been to Europe. Several countries use Dollars, but they issue their own non-interchangeable notes. It reinforces that there is no need to get French Euros and German Euros (unlike Australian Dollars and New Zealand Dollars). The complete list of countries may not be necessary, and could be replaced with a link to a section of EU, but the list of coin issuing currencies is useful, as travellers may get any of several coin designs. It might be useful to a visitor to Latvia to know that they can go to Estonia for a brief visit without thinking about money, but the fact that both countries are in Schengen is far more relevant. AlasdairW (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't identify in the USA article the US dollars are legal currency in Ecuador, Panama, Zimbabwe, the Cayman Islands, and so on, and I pray to the Creator that we don't do that. Maybe we just link "euro" to European Union and put lists in that section so that we can keep the Latvia article about Latvia. Not everything that is "useful" belongs in a top-level country article - that leads to articles that are long, unfocused and not useful. Ground Zero (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just move the infobox to the EU and Europe articles. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I now moved it (to EU, with a clearer reference to that article from Europe). I suppose the EU article contains other information important for those visiting several countries, so should be read regardless, and printing it out takes less paper than having the list on several country articles also needed to be printed out. Those visiting just a few countries, on the other hand, do not need the list. --LPfi (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)