Talk:Lithuania and the euro

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

Design?
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)

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

Update
Could someone update the convergence criteria data? Thanks.--134.176.205.139 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Aren't there newer figures than April 2013? --134.176.204.29 (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Poll
The poll is not dated and the source is not available. --134.176.205.246 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Erased poll. --134.176.205.246 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

better wording?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Date
"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)
 * I clarified it: 00:00 midnight 1 January 2015 = 24:00 on 31 December 2014. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lithuania and the euro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
 * 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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * 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

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

Requested move 28 December 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Although "[w]e strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects." (WP:CONSISTENT), the article content significantly exceeds the scope of the articles named "X euro coins". (closed by non-admin page mover) &mdash; Mdaniels5757 (talk &bull; contribs) 15:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Lithuania and the euro → Lithuanian euro coins – The correct name of the page is "Lithuanian euro coins" as in use for all contries that have already introduced the euro. Please do see: Austrian euro coins, Belgian euro coins, Cypriot euro coins, Estonian euro coins, Finnish euro coins, French euro coins, German euro coins, Greek euro coins, Irish euro coins, Italian euro coins, Latvian euro coins, Luxembourg's euro coins, Maltese euro coins, Dutch euro coins, Portuguese euro coins, Slovak euro coins, Slovenian euro coins, Spanish euro coins, Monégasque euro coins, Sammarinese euro coins, Vatican euro coins. Thank you 79.31.38.141 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. The form "Country and the euro" is only used for main title headers of articles delineating countries where the euro is not in use, but may come into use in the future (Poland and the euro) or countries where the euro is used unilaterally (Montenegro and the euro). Lithuania, as pointed out in the nomination, is part of the eurozone. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because this article is not primarily about Lithuanian euro coins. If we need an article on Lithuanian article coins, then we should make one. Kahastok talk 09:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So you would rename all the previous pages (From Austria euro coins to Vatican euro coins) in the form "Country and the euro" or creating the page using the same texts you can find in? It is easily to verify how all those pages cointain the same information about the "history" how, when and why the euro was introduced etc. I do remember also that it is important to maintain coherence in naming pages that are on the same subject. --79.31.38.141 (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Where the content of the other articles is similar to this one - i.e. focussed broadly on the country's relationship with the euro rather than on the specific coins - then yes, I would rename them to match this one. Kahastok talk 14:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. This page is about Lithuania's journey from the litas to the euro, not on the 1- and 2- euro coins (for example) that the country mints. The appellant's example (e.g. Austrian euro coins) actually focuses on the euro coins that a country mint, rather than the history behind a particular country's decision to euroize. NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do see a section of the article on Lithuanian euro coins. My oppose stands since the coins is only a part of the article as a whole. However, I think that splitting Lithuanian euro coin s into a separate page - and reserving Lithuania and the euro for Lithuania's road to the euro - might be another solution. NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Consistent with other articles like Latvian euro coins. Reywas92Talk 00:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose since the article weighs more on the history and process for meeting the criteria for the Euro adoption while. Unlike the examples listed at the start of the discussions, this article provides details beyond design, identification, depiction, and circulation. Petra0922 (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article is about Lithuania's relationship with the Euro, how it came to join, all that sort of thing. It is not just about coins. See above opposes. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since there is the possibility of a basic misunderstanding regarding the purpose of this nomination, it may be helpful to reiterate the nomination's main point:
 * Euro coins are issued by 20 members of the European Union and 4 non-members. Below are the 24 English Wikipedia entries covering each of the issuing entities:

There are also 13 entities [but actually only 10, since 3 are already issuing coins] which may possibly issue euro coins at some point in the future. Below are the 13 English Wikipedia entries covering each of the those entities: Thus, only one entity has two separate entries (Croatian euro coins and Croatia and the euro). All the others are either in the first grouping or in the second grouping. There are only two outliers which issue euro coins, but are bereft of the main title header "Country euro coins" — #1 and #15, which leads to WP:CONSISTENT for those two main headers. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * 1) Andorran euro coins (redirects to Andorra and the euro)
 * 2) Austrian euro coins
 * 3) Belgian euro coins
 * 4) Croatian euro coins (also has a separate entry for Croatia and the euro)
 * 5) Cypriot euro coins
 * 6) Dutch euro coins
 * 7) Estonian euro coins
 * 8) Finnish euro coins
 * 9) French euro coins
 * 10) German euro coins
 * 11) Greek euro coins
 * 12) Irish euro coins
 * 13) Italian euro coins
 * 14) Latvian euro coins
 * 15) Lithuanian euro coins (redirects to Lithuania and the euro)
 * 16) Luxembourg's euro coins
 * 17) Maltese euro coins
 * 18) Monégasque euro coins
 * 19) Portuguese euro coins
 * 20) Sammarinese euro coins
 * 21) Slovak euro coins
 * 22) Slovenian euro coins
 * 23) Spanish euro coins
 * 24) Vatican euro coins
 * 1) Andorra and the euro (Andorra is already issuing euro coins)
 * 2) Bulgaria and the euro
 * 3) Croatia and the euro (Croatia is already issuing euro coins and has a separate entry for Croatian euro coins)
 * 4) Czech Republic and the euro
 * 5) Denmark and the euro
 * 6) Hungary and the euro
 * 7) Kosovo and the euro
 * 8) Lithuania and the euro (Lithuania is already issuing euro coins)
 * 9) Montenegro and the euro
 * 10) Poland and the euro
 * 11) Romania and the euro
 * 12) Sweden and the euro
 * 13) United Kingdom and the euro
 * I don't think there's any misunderstanding, the feeling is simply that we should not be renaming the article from a title which accurately describes its scope, to one that does not describe its scope. No amount of consistency makes that the correct decision, or a useful thing to do for our readers. In fact, looking at the list you provide above, there seem to be several others that are incorrectly titled. Latvian euro coins should be moved to Latvia and the euro for example. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional points regarding the above discussion
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:
 * Andorran euro coins (the header of the analogous entry is currently Andorra and the euro, although Andorra is already issuing euro coins)
 * 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:
 * Austria and the euro
 * Belgium and the euro
 * Cyprus and the euro
 * Estonia and the euro (redirects to Estonian euro coins)
 * Finland and the euro
 * France and the euro
 * Germany and the euro
 * Greece and the euro
 * Ireland and the euro
 * Italy and the euro
 * Latvia and the euro (redirects to Latvian euro coins)
 * Luxembourg and the euro
 * Malta and the euro
 * Monaco and the euro (redirects to Monégasque euro coins)
 * Netherlands and the euro
 * Portugal and the euro
 * San Marino and the euro
 * Slovakia and the euro
 * Slovenia and the euro
 * Spain and the euro
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I do confirm that 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)