Talk:Pound sterling/Archive 2

Regional language names used in the infobox
Can someone please explain to me why all those languages are needed in the infobox title? This is the english language wikipedia we do not need to provide mass translations. Cornish certainly does not belong there considering its only spoken properly by a few thousand people. I also notice that Manx Pound does not even bother to give the Manx spelling of the name pound sterling so i really have no clue why we are. This is the English language wikipedia, not a place to promote minority languages. If there is no debate within the next few days i will be removing all but the English spelling of the name. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because those are the native languages of Britain and Ireland, where the pound sterling is used or has been used. For someone who supports the unity of the people of the United Kingdom you don't seem to have a problem with excluding their languages. ~Asarlaí 16:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a big problem with the English language wikipedia being used to promote certain causes, such as the promotion of minority regional languages. A few thousand people speak cornish, throughout cornwall is is known as the British pound, or Pound sterling. Not the cornish translation of the term. this is the English language wikipedia.. why is regional language names relevant here? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * United States dollar only has the English spelling. it does not include lots of other languages spoken in the United States. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Belgian franc has the French, Dutch and German names. Many currency articles have the currency name in "regional" languages. The names are there, hidden, so that anyone who's interested can see them. That's not "promoting a cause". ~Asarlaí 16:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't "Punnd Sasannach" mean "English pound". Surely this is a misnomer? Even if that name is used in Gaelic (and I notice the Gaelic wikipedia does use it) it seems wrong, given that it isn't English, but British. 94.194.221.149 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Only Welsh and Scottish Gaelic are worth a emntion.SAD to see under DEMOGRAPHIC only Great Britain, rather than UK, or at least Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Suspect because all very American on her and they are using GB to mean UK..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.26.129 (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Denier or denarius
From the present article:

The symbol for the penny was "d.", from the French denier[citation needed], from the Latin denarius (the solidus and denarius were Roman coins).

So is it from the French or the Latin? I guess the writer here was trying to say it was from the Latin by way of the French?

Someone fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.192.28 (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free banknote images
File:Bank_Of_England10.png

I noticed that permission to display this image expired over a year ago. I haven't checked the others. 69.129.65.62 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC) I have all the notes I'll put up tomorrow Philpm930 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sterling Crisis section
This section relies extensively on the opinion of Sir Alec Cairncross and airbrushes the fact that the slide in value started in Q2 1975 on the back of a large government deficit. It conveys the impression that Callaghan (himself a former Chancellor, and a member of Cabinet as Foreign Secretary since the Labour election win in February, 1974 following the Miners' strike and 3 day week) was unaware of events until he became PM, and ignores the fact that Denis Healey was Chancellor from February 1974 until Labour lost power in 1979. The history of the exchange rate in 1975/76 is here:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/fromshowcolumns.asp?Travel=NIxIRxSUx&FromSeries=1&ToSeries=50&DAT=RNG&FD=1&FM=Jan&FY=1963&TD=7&TM=Jun&TY=1977&VFD=Y&html.x=13&html.y=17&CSVF=TT&C=62R&Filter=N

The section needs revision to provide a more balanced view of the crisis origins and duration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.62.101 (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Guineas
"It was customary to specify some prices in guineas". Needs a citation and clarification. Fine art auctions did use to work in guineas and I'm not sure, but it may be that extreme luxury goods were priced that way, but I don't remember anything day to day being priced in guineas. Bagunceiro (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The rule seemed to be that when it was high price goods (mostly premium quality or luxury) price was in guineas, common cheep gods ( (£) s d ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorsag (talk • contribs) 13:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal tender - ambiguous sentence?
I think this sentence can be read at least two ways:


 * It is legal for shopkeepers to choose to reject any payment, even if it would be legal tender in that jurisdiction, but not in their interest because no debt exists when the offer of payment is made at the same time as the offer of goods or services.

Either it is not in the shopkeeper's interest because no debt exists, or because the payment is legal tender. Could this be clarified?

Bumface11 (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Former, I think it's clear, but you can clarify it if you wish. p.s. I like your name. :) Rob (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It was badly worded and included stuff not pertinent to the discussion. I've removed the excess and, hopefully, made it clearer. Fiddle some more if you think it can be improved. Bazza (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Names
In the section titled "Names" I put the correct definition of "quid pro quo" as sourced from the American Heritage Dictionary. I also had a second source for the literal meaning (i.e.: "what for what") from: "Classical Latin An Introductory Course by JC McKeown; Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis/Cambridge Copyright © 2010"(see page 26). I only included the dictionary as a reference since it correctly asserts both the literal and figurative meanings of the phrase. I also removed the {Citation needed} tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0w8st8s (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

1 million and 100 million pound banknotes displayed
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid69900095001?bckey=AQ,AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_VhJQ6tgdykx3j23oh1YN-2U&bctid=3122858540001

This video shows the appearance of the 1 million and 100 million (giants and titans). I'm not sure how it would directly relate to the article, but perhaps it could be useful in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChameleonXVX (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Same vs. different currency
What establishes that the pounds used in Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man are the same currency as in the UK, but those used in the Falklands, Gibraltar, and Saint Helena are different? -- Beland (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The ones if the British Crown Dependencies use the same 3 digit code as the UK and the ones in the British Overseas Territories have their own unique codes. Ezza1995 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

History of the Guinea
"In 1663, a new gold coinage was introduced based on the 22 carat fine guinea."

The guinea article says it started in 1663; should the above sentence read: "In 1663, a new gold coinage was introduced called the 22 carat fine guinea."?184.8.220.129 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"40 per cent"
If the promised 'further investigation' had of taken place, a quick google search finds at least two sources that engage in the subject: source 1, and source 2. I would imagine further effort would bring about further evidence and more detail.204.116.6.232 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 204.116.6.232 (talk) Then why did you keep reverting me instead of providing the source first? (N0n3up (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC))
 * Never mind, already put the first one there. (N0n3up (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pound sterling. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160119104424/http://www.gov.je/TreasuryResources/Jersey+Currency/default.htm to http://www.gov.je/TreasuryResources/Jersey+Currency/default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Brexit clarity
Anstoyanov's edit at 12:23, 24 October 2016‎ is either unclear or untrue. 'The effect of Brexit weakened the Sterling against Euro with 5% for just 1 night. The night before the vote 1 GBP was trading for 1.5USD, the morning next day when the results was clear, 1 GBP was trading for 1.34USD.'

1. The edit begins with an assertion about sterling against the euro but then continues by referring to the sterling - dollar exchange; I suggest this lacks clarity. Would it not make more sense to say: ''The effect of Brexit weakened the Sterling against Euro by 5%. The night before the vote 1 GBP was trading for €1.30; on the day following the referendum, when the result was clear, 1 GBP was trading at €1.23.''

2. Since sterling is now trading at c.€1.12 (14% down since 22/06/16), how can it be true to say Brexit weakened the pound for just 1 night? Here we are (four months later) and the pound is still lower against the euro than it was on the morning following the referendum, let alone the night before; hardly just 1 night.

3. The figures against the dollar are equally misleading if intended to refer to just 1 night. On 22nd June (the night before the referendum) the pound was trading at $1.466; on 24th June (the morning after the referendum) it closed at $1.3694 which is a 6% fall. As I write, it's trading at $1.2232 - a fall of 16.5% since the night before the referendum. Again, that's hardly weaker for just 1 night.

4. The article cited doesn't suggest that Sterling fell 5% against Euro for just 1 night", but rather that it weakened sterling against the euro in just one night, which is not the same thing at all (and is probably why the article cited as a reference doesn't use the phrase just 1 night at all.) The article cited also notes that there was further weakness expected over the coming weeks. - a prophesy that turned out to be true but which the edit doesn't mention at all.

As this edit stands, it seems to me, it's misleading - not through its being factually inaccurate but in its relying on half the facts and concealing the rest (which is probably worse than being wholly inaccurate!)

Misha An interested observer of this and that 12:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey TeekeeyMisha, you are right. Just tried to include the information I thought it was missing. Tried to be as accurate as possible, but maybe haven't been able to explain it well. If you can help with this, it'll be great. If not, you can remove this sentence or change it as you think it'll be best for the wiki readers.--Anstoyanov (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're right - the information was missing and does need to be included. I've tried to make it a little clearer. See what you think; doubtless someone will come along and change it if I've made a poor job of it!

Misha An interested observer of this and that 21:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Currencies of the United Kingdom
Regarding these edits: The pound may be the currency of the whole UK, but WP:SUBCAT says
 * my removal of Category:Currencies of the United Kingdom
 * reversion by because "the pound is a currency of the whole UK, not just Scotland"
 * my removal again

Pound sterling is in Category:Currencies of Scotland, which is in Category:Currencies of the United Kingdom, so Pound sterling is already indirectly in Category:Currencies of the United Kingdom and does not need to be in it directly Mitch Ames (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pound sterling. 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/20090420013058/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/south-america/british-antarctic-territory/ to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/south-america/british-antarctic-territory
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100630104507/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/south-america/tristan-da-cunha to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/south-america/tristan-da-cunha

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion 12 November 2017
"Manx pound" ("IMP"), "Jersey pound" ("JEP") and "Guernsey pound" ("GGP") simply do not exist as separate currencies according to the Bank of England, any more does a "Scottish pound" exist before Scottish Independence! The Isle of Man Government, the States of Jersey and the States of Guernsey have never claimed that they are issuing separate currencies from the £. They are self-regulated (but nevertheless under the ultimate oversight of the Ministry of Justice of HMG in the UK, on behalf of the Bank of England) local issues of the £ not (directly or formally) regulated, authorized or licensed by the Bank of England. --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a great deal of valuable content in the Jersey pound article, such as the history of currency in Jersey pre-1834. There's more than enough content for separate articles. I think there is a case though for renaming the article. "Jersey pound" certainly gives the impression of it being a separate currency. Perhaps "Currency in Jersey"? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the specifics of this issue, but this article is already quite long. If there is enough separate content for these articles, but the separate names are confusing, this should be stated clearly in the lede and also maybe a rename is appropriate as per Curb Safe Charmer. Mvolz (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a grey area, but the Currency Act 1992 (an Act of Tynwald, the relevant legislative body) states that the Manx pound is "at parity with" the pound sterling, which implies that it is not one and the same currency. Ehrenkater (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Curb Safe Charmer (talk that there is valuable information the Jersey pound article, but the same can be said about the Alderney pound article, the Guernsey pound article, and the Manx pound article. These articles are long enough and with interesting images to be kept just as they are now.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as is, the page is about a related but separate topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the Bank of England source mentions the Crown Dependency note issues. I don't believe that that any of them have sufficient substance to be a distinct currency (as opposed to a note and coin issue - and whether or note the notes are BoE backed isn't relevant to that). For a currency the majority of the money exists electronically, and none of these territories have any distinction in the electronic banking systems or accounts of the banking grounds - deposited funds are merely shown as sterling, which would not be the case if non-physical funds were an obligation on the dependency governments. However, even if these are note issues and not currencies, they each have a rich history and useful information, so keep. Mauls (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as is. These pages have more than enough history to warrant their own articles, regardless of whether or not they are recognized by the Bank of England in the present year. For example, just because we no longer view Prussia as a nation in 2018 doesn't mean we should be merging that page with Germany. All these pages have their own history which is why they were created as separate entities in the first place. S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 16:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, there's too much content on each of the articles to make for a clean and convenient merge without resulting in a bloated, barely readable article, plus, they are referring to different currencies, and thus subjects, entirely. xe.com lists the Jersey, Manx, & Guernsey pound as separate currencies to Pound sterling, as well.  AtlasDuane (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - would complicate this page. Sumorsǣte (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Plural
A common slang term is quid, which is singular and plural, except in the common phrase "Quids in!" What about "quids worth", as in "fifty quids worth of petrol"? 82.153.110.183 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  Rcsprinter   (state the obvious)  @ 18:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Although "quids' worth" (with or without the apostrophe) is sometimes used, "quid's worth" is more correct; with the singular it's "a quid's worth". Peter&#160;James (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'd guess that is simply an elision. It ought to be "fifty quid worth" (as in "you owe me fifty quid"), but that is a little awkward for a native speaker so the "s" creeps in to smooth the pronunciation. Bagunceiro (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Quid's worth of petrol" is still the singular "Quid" but now possessing "worth of petrol". Gavinayling (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Debts
Hi Twobells. I'm currently in a dispute with two IPs who keep reverting edits whom they aren't entirely aware of. The topic is that the UK at the end of WWI became in debt, but they IPs want to put that Britain became in debt with the US, something not entirely proven as far as I'm concerned. And when they provide a source, one of them to be exact, only provide book passages not covering the entire idea of the edits. Here's the current edit history, and this is the edit I'm talking about. Hope I'm not troubling you, just in case they come back, which I'm sure they will. (N0n3up (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC))
 * Not entirely proven? It is common knowledge. You are acting like you are completely unaware of how much the UK borrowed (and lended), which became a major talking point in the works of Keynes and the political discussions surrounding the writing of the Treaty of Versailles. Literally a ten second search provides evidence. If anything, numbers are what should be getting discussed. At any rate, since you are acting incapable: P. 424: the primary debtor was he US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B11B:6C88:DE0B:DA4A:6997:2C81 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you only gave a book passage and doesn't cover the whole concept. (N0n3up (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC))
 * And if you keep reading, you'll see that the mentions are that the US was the only one to fund its war deficits and that foreign investment (US) made a significant contribution, nothing of the likes that Britain was in debt with US. And even the investment bit is mentioned as a common misconception. (N0n3up (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC))
 * "In 1921 Britain's external debts, primarily to the United States..." I am failing to understand why you seem incapable of understanding the UK owed most of it's money to the United States...
 * Yet another source (P.15 onwards), and another, and another, another, another, all of whom highlight the UK primarily owed to the US making your ongoing assertion that this isn't the case dubious, and makes one question why you want to censor that it was the US the UK owed? If you read the sources, or study the period, one easily finds that while Britain was owed a lot of money by its allies in Europe they were in financial troubles and couldn't all pay back, the money sent to Russia was lost, and pretty much allied debt and German reparation payments were going to the US to pay off the huge sums of money borrowed until better deals were made a decade later.
 * Then there is the issue of your edit summaries making no mention of if you even read the sources that were in the article, did they support the material before you claimed it was unsourced and removed it... and you apparent complete lack of understanding of what going on during the period: "keep in mind that Britain mostly traded with the now commonwealth nations, the US was an acting ally in WW" - trading partner and the US being an ally have nothing to do with the simple fact that the US was the nation the UK owed most of its money to. 2600:100D:B11B:6C88:DE0B:DA4A:6997:2C81 (talk
 * Please sign your posts, I've done it for you this time. The first one only states the problem as a sole mention. The second one is about WWII, not WWI. The third one only states the loan problem as simply another issue regarding Britain, and although the US benefited from war loans, it wasn't restricted to the UK, France and other European nations also borrowed from the US. The fourth one you provided states as war-debt as a circled problem among US and European post-WWI problems. The fifth one, like the third one states that although the US benefited from loans during the war, it was the result to loan various European nations, not only Britain. None of the sources provided imply that Britain was in heavy debt to the US. Not to mention that in the fifth one, the European allies decided to dismiss the debts to US since they joined the war at latter stage of the war. And in regards to British trading with the commonwealth, Britain had always relied on her colonies for resources, including economically, reducing the war-loan problem of Britain with US, which was only one of many problems for Britain at the time. Since the current topic of argument isn't 100% concise nor accurate, it was better to generalize along the lines of what happened during and after WWI, especially since it made a very small part of the article, being only part of a sentence. (N0n3up (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC))
 * So your misreading/completely ignoring sources continues. The second source is called British Policy and European Reconstruction After the First World War and links to a page talking about the issue during the 1920s...
 * The sources all support the assertion in the article, that US was the primarily holder of Britain's debt following the war. You are just ignoring the evidence because you do not like it.
 * You have also failed to address the question posed to you: did you read the source in the article before you made your edits with your weak edit summaries of being unsourced...2600:100D:B118:9B47:A06E:8032:C577:F046 (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2600:100D:B118:9B47:A06E:8032:C577:F046 Because I don't like it? That's nice. Before you fruitpick the sources, please read them carefully. I can assure you I did. In regards to the second source, you misread the part where it mentions WWII, something you should've noticed when Churchill was mentioned. Britain wasn't the only one involved. This war-debt became a contributing part to the development of the great depression, and it was various European nations involved. Your sources are right, but Britain's debt was a factor that had the US, Britain and other nations involved, not only the US and Britain. (N0n3up (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC))
 * I did not misread the source, I provided yet another source that supports what the article stated - that UK owed the US 800 million. Your inability to stay on point is shocking, the accusation of cherrypickibg laughable, and your avoidance of answering questions posed to you notable.2600:1015:B128:48E7:FD42:D661:BA6B:D8B0 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2600:1015:B128:48E7:FD42:D661:BA6B:D8B0 (talk)The sources that you provided give a variable image of the situation in discussion and there is much more to the whole image here. Clearly you only wan't to prove you're point right, and you are, to an extent. But the version that you're implying is a bit misleading. And in regards to the last part of your message (the part that's not a borderline personal-attack) I read the sources which you provided and it seems that your only interest lies in being proven right and with a noticeable hint of patriotism in your part (and such a lovely "pathetic" edit summary you provided). But before we can come to a conclusion, please consider the sources that you posted because apart from the fact that Britain was in debt to the US (keep in mind this is "after" WWI), there was a chain of events included in the war-debt, something your intended previous version doesn't cover and thus, like I said, misleading. You said you had another source, can you post it please? Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC))

N0n3up's initial edit removed reference that the British debt of 850 million dollars was owed largely to the United States. In this edit he claims that this information is unsourced. He additionally changed reference to British debt being 40 per cent of Government spending to "a considerable amount", claiming that the figure was "Unsourced and uncertain". During his subsequent edits on this article and on Twobells talkpage (1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert) he does not acknowledge if he read the source used in the article thus unable to support his initial claim that the material was unsourced. This point has yet been addressed!

As the edit summaries show, his further edits include ignoring evidence that supports the initial claim in the article and making ill-informed comments such as "keep in mind that Britain mostly traded with the now commonwealth nations, the US was an acting ally in WW" (irrelevant, not an excuse to revert, and has nothing to do with the discussion) and a false claim to further investigate: "please stand by till I find sources that do". As the above talkpage log, and his further edits show, no such attempt was made to further investigate the subject other than poor attempts to rubbish sources that contradict his position.

As noted in my own edits, what the article states it is not an unsourced statement it is fact. What more than likely should be argued about is the figures.


 * Chickering and Forster, Great War, Total War: Combat and Mobilization on the Western Front, 1914-1918, p. 424: "In 1921 Britain's external debts, primarily to the United States, totaled $5.4 billion"
 * Hirai, Keynes's Theoretical Development: From the Tract to the General Theory, p. 36: "Britain's enormous war debts - accruing from the huge loans from the Unites States for the war effort ..."
 * McDougall, France's Rhineland Policy, 1914-1924, p. 150: "If the United States insisted [which it did] on Britain's recognizing her debt of £800 million ..."
 * International Relations, p. 79ff. explains how the UK pretty much only owed the US money
 * Self, "Britain, America and the War Debt Controversy", p. 15: "Great Britain was a net creditor to the tune of $6.4 billion ... it owed the United States $4.5 billion ...". Additional information on the Anglo-American loans and repayments follow, including noting the fact that despite being a "net creditor" Britain lost huge sums on funding Russia and would not see all of it's loans repaid by her allies to aid paying off the money owed to America.
 * Orde, British Policy and European Reconstruction After the First World War (despite being written off by N0n3up as being about "WWII, not WWI" and I "should've noticed [this] when Churchill was mentioned.") explains in length about the British re-negotiation with her allies, during the 1920s, on the debts they owed her so they would have to pay less, further reinforcing the point the previous source made that Britain was a "net creditor" in name only.

Then there is the whole issue of if Britain did not owe the US large amounts of money, what was the point of the Balfour Note?

Of course, highlighting this can apparently only be done with "a noticeable hint of patriotism in your part", well is that Britain patriotism or American? Am both, and facts negate ethnic or national ties: the UK owed the US a lot of money due to taking on war loans, and according to some sources the US was pretty much the only country it borrowed from therefore the article was correct and this edit war could have been avoided had N0n3up read the sources provided to him. I would also like to highlight that despite the patronizing "keep in mind this is "after" WWI", the whole discussions centers around the change to the following sentence: "However, by the end of the war the country owed £850 million (£ as of 2015, mostly to the United States". It is not about being right persobally, it is making the article follow what the sources say; The sources are relevant, and cannot just be ignored.2600:1015:B12D:C684:AE0D:B95E:401F:C23A (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Made few modifications per this source provided by some IP. The one who started to continue to argue about the content. . And why do you keep saying "gah" in your edit summaries? Are you panting from an over-patriotic overdose. (N0n3up (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC))

Why do my summaries include gah? Simple, despite spoon feeding you, you still ignore the sources and seem incapable of understanding that you are the one editing agaisnt guidelines and wiki policy while engaging in a policy of trollish attacks upon my nationalist ty, who h has no bearing on what the sources say.2600:1015:B118:8ADD:DDFA:9602:39C:5DCD (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2600:1015:B118:8ADD:DDFA:9602:39C:5DCD (talk) I knew it, this is patriotically motivated, you don't really care about the information provided, you only care about yourself and being patriotically right. And for your information, the recent tweaks do go according to sources, it says what you and sources imply with added info. I'm not "attacking" your country like you imply, just added more information. And before you accuse me of patriotism, please read my message not what they say, but the grammar used and ask yourself if it's British like you think it is. (N0n3up (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC))
 * Do you care to back up your personal attacks with evidence? How are my edits (reverting the vandalism you made to this article, and reverting your unsourced assertions) patriotically motivated (I note you failed to read my above edit where I stated I am Anglo-American, and have - from the very beginning - based my comments on what the sources state)? How is following what the sources say, inserting a nationalist tendency into the discussion?
 * The sources DID NOT say, as you claimed in the article before your edit was reverted and despite the fact that it was unsupported reinserted, that war debts resulted in the Great Depression. It is a weak reading of the sources to even claim that complications arose from war debts leading to the Great Depression. You are not reading the sources, you are misinterpreting them woefully that it is in breach of wiki guidelines and should be considered vandalism. You have demonstrated an inability to correctly use the sources, not bring any sources to the table, and only engage in personal attacks. Admins will be contacted.204.116.6.232 (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 204.116.6.232 (talk)Sigh, I did not at any moment, misread your post. I assumed your anglo-american excuse was to rid of said accusation. Anyways, if you read up to page 82 in here, you will read the following up to the great depression, and keep in mind that the war-debt dilema wasn't the cause, this is an additional fact placed there to shed some light on the topic. And there is nothing about the 40% you keep posting on your edits. And stop changing you IP address, if we're going to talk about this, we might as well if you don't make yourself elusive to contact. May I suggest creating an account? (N0n3up (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC))

Anglo-Saxon Coins: Studies Presented to F.M. Stenton on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday, 17 May, 1960
I deleted this statement from #Etymology: ''However, the perceived narrow window of the issuance of this coin, and the fact that coin designs changed frequently in the period in question, led Philip Grierson to reject this in favour of a more complex theory. '' I did so first for the obvious reason that no information is given about this "more complex theory", and second because the citation doesn't mention Philip Grierson as an author, nor does WorldCat list him among "All authors and contributors". Of course it can be reinstated but it needs evidence of authorship and some clue as to what this more complex theory is (and how it passes WP:FRINGE). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that the same material (with an explanation of Grierson's theory) is given at Sterling silver, but with the same erroneous citation. I will fix that citation but don't really see a case to restore it here unless the explanation is given, because the etymology is incidental to this article and it is wp:undue go into great detail. If anyone disagrees strongly, I won't oppose. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Rarely used notes: £1. Really?
Is this a relic from the early days of this article? AFIK, the £1 note is demonetised everywhere and has been for many many years (though of course it can be redeemed at the issuing bank, but that is not evidence of use). Is there a good reason to retain this item in the infobox? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It really should link to The Royal Bank of Scotland £1 note rather than Bank of England £1 note. --  AxG /  ✉  21:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Oldest currency claim
I would question this claim: "The pound sterling is the world's oldest currency still in use and which has been in continuous use since its inception."

Gold has been used since ancient times.

John Cross (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but so too have cattle, axe-heads and many other alternatives to direct barter. Which makes the real question: what fundamentally differentiates a currency from any other bartering intermediary? How is gold coinage different from gold bullion?
 * Philosophical questions aside, the statement in the article is supported by a reliable source (BBC). So unless you can produce a better citation that says otherwise, the text as it stands should stay and I have reverted your disputed tag accordingly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an article called "This is why we use gold as currency" published by the World Economic Forum (https://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-52748720101108). The article says "Perhaps modern societies would be well-served by looking at the properties of gold, to see why it has served as money for millennia, especially when someone’s wealth could disappear in a click."  Gold also has an ISO currency code: XAU meaning that is recognised as a currency by an international standard setting organisation (see: https://www.currency-iso.org/en/home/tables/table-a1.html). John Cross (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Gold as a medium of exchange (barter intermediary) went through many phases but it was not until it was coined that it is credible to call it a currency. Arbitrarily sized nuggets, scraps, war booty etc are not currencies. Gold ceased to be a currency about 50 years ago (see gold standard); today much of it is used in industrial processes (especially electronics) like copper, with most of the rest is turned into trinkets. Otherwise it is a fetish for those who don't approve of fiat currency or just want to pump and dump it. Its price varies rather wildly with world tension, perceived threat, and commodity trader speculation. XAU is simply short-hand for "a troy ounce of gold", included with the actual currencies for convenience, see ISO 4217 (...'several things which are "similar to" currencies'...). No NPOV source calls it a currency. In the real world, gold is sold by the kilogram ingot: small amounts like a troy ounce are 'specials' for the retail trade.
 * All of the above takes us dangerously close to wp:NOTFORUM and should not continue. As far as this article is concerned, the only thing that matters is what reliable third party sources say. Our opinions as editors are irrelevant. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

25 dollars. На памяти.
Это когда 1$ был равен 0,75 руб..

Нынешний 1руб. ~ 1/200 тогдашнего.

Итого=~5 ООО "руб." чего-то. Те миллионеры были настоящими ! 50 000 000 000руб. - всяко не 11т.р. ..

Поэтому я нисколько не удивился когда брат Кварцнегера начал глотать воздух как рыба на берегу .. )))

176.59.212.243 (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Demonetised notes and coins are not 'rarely used', they are not used at all.
The BoE will always accept old coins and notes for ever, even if they have been demonetised. This does not make them 'used' in any sense. A very strong case must be made (supported by reliable sources) that pre-decimal coins are even legal tender, let alone 'rarely used'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Some pre-decimal coins are legal tender, but most are not. The regular issues were generally demonitised as part of decimalisation, or when the equivalent decimal denominations were made smaller.


 * The exceptions are (from memory):
 * Maundy coins and circulation issues that look like them (silver 2d and 3d), which were redenominated into new pence in 1971.
 * Issues that didn't circulate after the war anyway, so didn't need removing (i.e. double florins, crowns and sovereigns).
 * Silver and gold from before 1816 and copper from before 1860 was long-gone already.


 * I think it would be better to get rid of the distinction between "frequently" and "rarely" used, and just list the coins and notes currently issued for circulation. I suspect the point of the exercise was to model situations like the US half and the Canadian 50 cent, which are technically circulation coins that get issued every year but are rarely used in practice. Kahastok talk 18:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with getting rid of the coins "rarely" section as it currently stands. I had a go at improving it but was firmly and abruptly by  for having tried. The coins "rarely" section might, instead, contain the bizarre marketing ploy from the Royal Mint (6p), linked to Sixpence_(British_coin), and a simple link to Maundy money. The assertion above that the BoE will always accept old coins is false . Notes are a different matter and can always be exchanged for their original value . Nonetheless, these also should probably be omitted from the infobox's notes section. I'll leave all this to others lest I'm accused again of "massive WP:OR", whatever that it. Bazza (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I should have said "massive POV" but I doubt that you would be any the less insulted so I withdraw. But for these coins to be included in the table needs substantial consensus for such a substantial change.
 * Actually I tagged the "Christmas sixpence" as "not in citation given" (except that your edit collided with it so it hasn't happened) because the citation says nothing about use for circulation. I agree completely that it is just a cynical bit of taking the urine by the RM.
 * Maundy money is a special case: again it is not for circulation and is only of interest to coin collectors and royalty obsessives. As Terry Pratchett might have said "this is a new meaning of the word 'use' that I haven't come across before".
 * I agree that these coins should be listed in the article (you forgot about groats, btw) but just not in the infobox as any kind of real world use. I'm sure we can resolve this question with good will all round. And then go for a game of push ha'penny! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Silver sixpence
I have been bold and just deleted the modern silver sixpence as just a money-making gimmick, the Mint selling their reputation for a mess of pottage. Why should we give them any free advertising space? I won't complain if anyone really thinks it has to go back but if so, see next. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * TBH I keep on wondering whether we really need to give it as much weight on Sixpence (British coin) as we give it. Given that it is little more than a money-making gimmick. Kahastok talk 22:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What to do about 'not intended for circulation' coins?
There are a number of coins in the list that, per discussion above, cannot be described as "rarely used". They are't used at all. This is not like the Peter Rabbit 50p that everyone is hoarding because they heard about someone somewhere on Facebook. I wonder if a new 'type' field could be introduced to the template to cater such things? In the meantime, I've given them a footnote but it is not really satisfactory. Anyone got a better idea? because this one is pretty poor. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm going to make a proposal on the article to just get rid of anything that isn't intended for circulation.


 * As I say, I think the "rarely used" coins are intended to mean, they exist, they can circulate, people do use them occasionally. Not - as in this case - coins that were never intended to circulate and that even banks will generally reject.


 * And the £1m and £100m interbank banknotes are in the same bracket. They aren't "rarely used".  They're a legal curiosity which doesn't belong here. Kahastok talk 21:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

all round. Thanks. Bazza (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Scottish pounds
It is contrary to WP:EGG to wlink the RBS one pound note to "£1 (Scottish)" because of the risk of confusion with pound scots.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a WP:COMMONNAME description for such a thing, which, being also described in the Banknotes of Scotland, is reasonably referred to as a Scottish pound note. The current text is an improvement on the previous £1 description, but I agree it could be improved further. Bazza (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know and agree. My challenge was to the wikilink "£1 (Scottish)". How about "£1 (RBS)"?
 * Of course there is a second issue: no such notes have been issued since 2001 and were described in 2006 as 'rarely seen'. (The fact that Scottish bank notes are not legal tender anywhere does make it difficult to come up with a form of words but either way I would urge strongly that it been removed from the table as it is long past the stage of 'rarely used'). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * FWIW I have implemented this as part of my proposal described above. Kahastok talk 21:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

suboptimal interest rates?
This sentence is unclear: "it would, according to many critics, have led to suboptimal interest rates, harming the British economy".

Indeed, Eurostat shows short-term interest rates are lower in the euro area than in the UK, since 2012 (Source: Eurostat (tec00035) and (irt_st_m), ECB) with 1.17 point difference in 2019.

Difference in Money market interest rates (monthly data [irt_st_m]) is 0.52.

What do you mean by suboptimal interest rates? -- user:77.193.104.197 11:49, 29 June 2020‎


 * The source, the Conservative newspaper The Daily Telegraph, is behind a pay-wall so we can't see precisely what it is intended but I suspect it is something along the lines of (a) the UK has a long term habit of running deficits in both international trade and government budget, so has tended to need higher (than peers) interest rates to control inflation; and (b) the UK's economic cycle has not tended to synchronise with that of the rest of Europe [it tends to be tossed between the EU and US cycles and consequently is rather turbulent) so may need higher rates when the Continent needs low, and vice versa. That was the context for Gordon Brown's Five Economic Tests. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

GBP is spoken "Great British Pound" yet is not mentioned?
I have always known GBP as 'the Great British Pound' yet within this article/page it is said GB (Great Briton) has been added to P (Pound) to form GBP yet in everyday free speech in the country of origin 'the Great British Pound' is used to refer to GBP. Could this be added? Great article otherwise. Regards Peter Pavessey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a backronym to me. The common names are "Pound sterling", "sterling" and "British Pound". The actual origin is the same as every other three letter acronym for a currency: first two letters are the ISO 3166-1 code for the country (GB) and the third letter is the initial letter of the currency name (Pound). Compare USD, CAD, AUD, JPY, CNY. (By the way, Great Britain is smaller than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Currency Printers in the U.K.
The currency printers that were listed before were inaccurate so I have corrected it.

The banks listed before are now subsidiaries of bigger banks and the rights to print would be held by the parent company.

Even the U.K government are considering getting rid of Scottish notes as there are no independent Scottish printers to print a unique Scottish issue.

ChefBear01 (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Operation Bernhard (BRD discussion)
There is a dispute about whether Operation Bernhard is a significant event in history to be deserving of mention. The article is very long and we really need to make every sentence earn its keep. I don't see that this one does. The plan's first attempt failed completely. The small amounts produced in its second attempt did not, and were not intended to, destabilise the currency. I really can't see how it passes the WP: DUE test. Put in See Also? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see where the dispute is that you refer to. According to the FA article on Operation Bernhard it was significant enough for the Bank of England to issue a new design after the war. I think it deserves mention, but with a referenced comment, which it does not have now. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Part of my concern is about where it was: in the history of the currency. It had no material effect on the currency. It did have some effect on the banknotes and I see that it is mentioned briefly in that section. Perhaps it could be amplified there?, would that satisfy you? All: we don't have a section on forgery. Should we?.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I felt duty bound to restore it after my unintentional deletion (so it’s not my work). You decide what’s best, but three wiki lines for this trivia isn’t bad. Thanks. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

If desired, leave “Bernard” as-is for now. Make a well thought-out “forgeries” section first before moving it around again. Well though out = won’t reach to 100 lines of edit lol. Thanks. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Annual inflation rate outdated
(sry, I'm no native speaker) :

This section does not contain fresh data.

Isn't there a diagram showing the inflation rate of the Pound sterling in the recent years ?

Or a high quality source that is regularily updated ?

thanks in advance for any contributions to the areticle ! --Präziser (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Done. For long version, see https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices
 * --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Graph not done but it is readily available at https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7g7/mm23 --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

STG abbreviation
Many sources, including Reuters, still use the abbreviation. It is also a stylistic choice used by some writers for https://www.poundsterlinglive.com and even some material on the Bank of England's website. While STG is not as common as it once was, to suggest it isn't used at all is demonstrably untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.208.165 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming to the article talk page to tease out this issue. Please read WP:Bold, revert, discuss: when your changes are reverted, the talk page is used to develop consensus, not reversion and counter-reversion of the live article. There is no requirement that you should but I think that you would find it a lot more convenient if you had a Wikipedia account.
 * There is no suggestion that stg is not used at all, but it is not used in contexts where there is a need to distinguish between different currencies that use the pound sign.
 * On the BoE site, I see phrases like "Date of operation 01/10/19. Total size of operation Stg 1,268mn" where the form "Stg" (not STG) is being used as alternative to the pound sign.
 * On Reuters, I see phrases like "24 Apr 2022 — Britain's Asda to invest over 73 mln stg in prices." where 'stg' is being used as an abbreviation for sterling
 * As for stylistic choices, well FOREX traders and commentators like their little code-words: this is just another. Or simply where the author's keyboard doesn't have a £ key.
 * Is there any wp:reliable source for "STG" (all caps)? I would be surprised if there were because it looks like an ISO code.
 * I accept the evidence of current use so we should certainly document the reality that "stg" is used as abbreviation for sterling but not make any suggestion that it has equal status to GBP. So let's discuss how to reflect the differing usages in different contexts.
 * I suggest these changes:
 * the opening sentence to read Sterling (ISO code GBP, traditionally abbreviated as Stg.
 * it is absolutely the case that If distinction between sterling and another currency called 'pound' is necessary, it is normal in modern usage to avoid using the £ sign completely and disambigate by using the relevant ISO 4217 codes (GBP, EGP or LBP, for example). Your latest revision If distinction between sterling and another currency called 'pound' is necessary, traditionally abbreviations such as '£stg.' or '£ stg.' (e.g. "£stg.12,000" or "£12,000 stg.") have been used. is pussy-footing around to avoid saying so. Do you have some aversion to international standards? I will reinstate the statement of general principle but leave your text stand alongside it.
 * Your text The non-ISO abbreviations STG or Stg may also be encountered, although not as commonly as they once were. is better but, in the absence of evidence, I suggest that this needs to change to The non-ISO abbreviations 'Stg' or 'stg' may also be encountered, although not as commonly as they once were. (See MOS:BOLD for reason to remove emboldening).
 * In a few places, you have replaced the straightforward word 'sterling' with 'STG'. This in Wikipedia terms is called "POV-pushing": see WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY. These were so egregious that I will revert them ahead of further discussion. I cannot see how you can defend them.
 * Wikipedia works by consensus and WP:STATUSQUO. If you cannot secure consensus for your changes by debate based on evidence, they don't get applied. But neither can they be obstructed because another editor 'just doesn't like it' without adequate reasons. Most of your contributions have been valid and valuable: you may have noticed that I reversed an attempt to completely revert them. I think we are making progress towards a reasonable balance. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

STG redux
While the OP may have been a little forthright with their edits, I do agree with them that Stg. is a valid and current abbreviation, akin to RMB for the currency of China. The way I see it is that "Stg." is the abbreviation for the name of the currency, while "GBP" is merely the ISO code for the "pound" unit of the currency, because ISO's practice of mating a country code with the first letter of the main unit did not produce an abbreviation for the currency's actual name, unlike "USD" for instance.


 * STG (all caps) is used as an abbreviation on British bank statements, for example "NON-STG PURCH", not "NON-GBP PURCH", as bank statements are a standardised instrument this makes it an official usage.
 * This article from the Bank of England website, written by a member of the Financial Policy Committee for the Daily Telegraph uses "STG" (all caps) https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/article/2012/fpc-one-year-young, while admittedly it does say he is writing in a private capacity, this still is a source intimately linked with the currency.
 * Ulster Bank uses the all-caps abbreviation, Ulster Bank actually issue local sterling notes in Northern Ireland, so this is a direct source from a sterling issuing bank. https://www.ulsterbank.ie/mobile-app-content/international-payments.html
 * The Central Banks of Kenya and Tanzania use STG POUND on their FOREX pages. As central banks rather than private FOREX operations these are valid sources. https://www.centralbank.go.ke/forex/ and https://www.tra.go.tz/index.php/exchange-rates

There are also recent examples of £Stg. being used, such as this pdf from last year. https://www.bmogam.com/uploads/2021/08/9c5618e2c0e3facb381b5841ed117902/pyrford-global-total-return-sterling-fund-class-c-stg-accumulating.pdf

I would suggest that Stg. be treated in the same way RMB is treated on the renminbi's page: mentioned and allowed to be used in the body of the article as an abbreviation for the currency name, as far as I can see the OP did not try to use "Stg." in place of an ISO code, but merely as an abbreviation for the full name.

TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There never was an issue with stg/Stg/STG/etc being described as an abbreviation for the word "sterling" exactly as you describe. The problem with the IP editor's edits was that they were trying to establish it as a currency code, equal in status to the ISO code. They were also trying to push its use in the body of the article, actively changing the word "sterling" to read "STG".
 * There is also an important issue of context. For example, the BoE article reads "2. The balance sheets of the UK’s major banks total some STG6 trillion. The aggregate of UK lending to small and medium sized enterprises is below STG200 billion" – but it is critical to observe that at no time does the author use the £ sign. I suspect that this is a habit from US keyboards that don't have a £ sign, or from pre-Unicode documents where a UK reader would see a £ sign but a US reader would see a # sign. The Ulster Bank practice probably dates from when there was also an Irish Pound or maybe they just don't like GBP (it should be UKP): yes, clearly they are using STG in a non-ISO way but (as the article says) the traditional style may sometimes still be seen. It is a non-standard usage.
 * So that article certainly should document that it exists, that it still used in some contexts but must not imply that it is a standard form.
 * Have you a specific proposed change to the article? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Surely Wikipedia ought to acknowledge the actual use of things rather than slavish devotion to an idealised standard. All the evidence suggests that these abbreviations are not merely "historic" or "traditional" but are indeed in current use despite not adhering to the ISO standard, in any case ISO standards are not universally adhered to in all fields.
 * I would particularly draw attention to the use of "STG" as an abbreviation on bank statements (which I note you have ignored), these are standardised instruments across all banks and thus indicate official recognition. All this speculation about the reasons behind the use of the abbreviation by banks and other users is unimportant if one wishes to be encyclopaedic, The person who wrote the article on the BoE website was clearly using "STG" to differentiate between sterling and other currencies much in the way a person writing about sums of mainland Chinese currency would use "RMB". It is not our place to speculate about why a person in the banking sector used that abbreviation, only to note the reality of its use.
 * You are pushing your own POV if you demand strict adherence to a specific standard when it can be clearly demonstrated that the banking system, news outlets, and FOREX operators do indeed use these abbreviations. I initially chose to be charitable and did not post any examples of private FOREX operations using it, but I do not think you are speaking in good faith by rejecting demonstrable use merely because it is non-standard, since you even reject use by a bank that actually issues currency.
 * My suggestion is that the abbreviation "Stg/stg./STG" be acknowledged (without spurious claims about it merely being "historical" or "traditional"), much as the "RMB" abbreviation is acknowledged and used on the Renminbi's page. The RMB's article notes that "RMB is not a currency code but is sometimes used like one in China", the cases are identical.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you are misrepresenting my concerns but can see why the difficult "debate' with the IP editor might have led you to do so. I believe strongly in the principle that Wikipedia reports what is, not just what should be (subject to WP:false balance and WP:undue). I have no issues with using the same style as the Renminbi article (and have just edited the article to do so). The problem with the IP editor's changes was that they were trying to make it into something more than it is, just an abbreviation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, this seems appropriate. Cheers!TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

£ stg
For research purposes I just looked up the World Bank's 2020 style guide, they cite "£ stg" as an alternative sign to "£" with the same weight given to it as "$" vs. "US$". I believe this makes a good case for it being listed as a distinction qualification on Wikipedia. Decided to pop it in here first before making any edits. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Citation please so we can have a look.
 * It could be mentioned somewhere in the body [with explicit attribution] but certainly not in the lead as that would be WP:UNDUE. The WB is (as it must) is distinguishing between the various currencies that use the £ sign, so it is a specialised context. Almost everywhere in which there is a risk of ambiguity, the ISO codes are used. Don't forget that it is difficult for Americans to type a £ sign and very difficult for Asians (see talk:Pound sign). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Its on page 139, I'm not by any means suggesting it replace the unqualified £ sign, just being referenced as "or £ stg. for distinction" as "£A.", "£NZ." and "£SA." are listed in the articles on the former Australian, New Zealand and South African currencies. If I'm being perfectly honest, I don't see the ISO code used very often for sterling except in coding. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As written, it seems to me to indicate a clearly secondary notation. In the final column, the penny is shown as £0.01 just as the US cent is shown as $0.01 but the AU and NZ cents are given as AU$0.1 and NZ$0.1. I can't see any other currency that uses a £ sign: the Egyptian and Syrian pounds are shown as LE and LS respectively. So in horse racing terms, an "also ran". Looks to me like "legacy usage" from when the £ was used for other currencies as well as sterling. I question whether it even deserves more than a footnote.
 * GBP being a code, it is hardly surprising that you see it in coding. On Bureux de Change, the ISO codes are common unless they have plenty of space to spell out the name. OANDA.COM, XE.COM and many others use it routinely. So does Wikipedia


 * --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Egyptian and Syrian pounds do infact use £ when it is available (as £E and £S), using LE and LS as approximations when it is not. The WB style guide does list the South Sudanese pound as using £ (this is affirmed by the Bank of South Sudan's website). I'm just puzzled you take this issue with "£ stg" but not with "US$", when both are abbreviated qualifiers. Shall I find recent (ie. last 10 years) uses of "£ stg" in Google Books, bank websites and such to demonstrate current use? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned in an earlier discussion, bank statements abbreviate it as "stg" or "STG" (very common examples are "NON-STG PURCH FEE", not "NON-GBP PURCH FEE" and "Stg Amt", not "GBP amount").
 * The Bank of Montreal for example uses "£stg". British sources generally do not need to qualify "£", but Irish sources do (because the Irish pound was a separate currency with a different exchange rate after 1979), such as the Irish Inland Revenue. Also Ulster Bank and Bank of Ireland. The latter two actually issue sterling notes in Northern Ireland. They all do use GBP as a code where appropriate, but do not use it to abbreviate the currency when appended to sums of money, because it isn't an abbreviation of the currency. There is no currency unit called a "Great British Pound", it is just for the benefit of computer systems, which do not care whether letters or numbers mean anything to a human. A computer wouldn't snigger at the number "80085". TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict. This is in reply to yours of 16:05]
 * LE and LS, according to the same document.
 * No, you are misreading me again. Like a dictionary, Wikipedia reports what is, not what should be or should not be. But there is also a policy, WP:DUE, which says in essence that the proportions of an article given to its various aspects should match those in real world usage. That is why I agree with you elsewhere that the name "sterling" deserves top billing, because it is accurate and proportionately reflects the extent of its usage in professional fields. STG and stg as abbreviations are less often seen but again I supported "stg" being given as the primary abbreviation in the lead sentence, but only for consistency with Wikipedia's other currency articles. However, "£ stg" is as [in]significant as "GB£": yes they are still seen in modern documents but rarely. According to the Ngram viewer for £ stg,GB£,GBP, they are both trivial in comparison to use of GBP. Focusing in on just GB£,£ stg, it is clearer that £ stg had its limelight between 1940 and 1980, declined and was overtaken by GB£ from 1992 and since then, though both were wiped out by GBP. Since then, £ stg is bouncing along the bottom, presumably preferred by elderly writers. That is why I agree that it deserves a mention in the article, but deserves no more than a sentence or two in a larger paragraph – less than we give to GB£ if we are to reflect real-world proportions of usage. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This is in reply to yours of 17:39.
 * I say again: I am not objecting to "£ stg" being reported, but only that the coverage should be proportionate.
 * Ireland broke the peg with sterling in 1979 and from then on its pound had the ISO code IEP and used the abbreviation IR£. So yes, the notations "£stg" and "GB£" were used in Ireland.
 * The "Great British Pound" is a backromym. The ISO code is comprised of the ISO 3166 code for the country (GB) and a one-letter currency code. HMG has declared that has changed some codes to UK (hence the new vehicle number plates) but I don't know if that has extended to creating UKP. It is entirely irrelevant whether or not you consider it a good system: it exists and is widely used. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't have some sort of immense hatred for ISO standards, but I treat it like what it is: a standardised coding system for machines.
 * I must confess I have never seen GB£ "in the wild", so to speak, I am not saying it never appears at all, but it does not appear in the sort of documents I tend to examine as sources. I give most weight to sources with the most "official" use, so I prioritise usage by banks (especially those that issue banknotes) and financial journals and glossaries. I am not sure what types of documents use "GB£" since I've never seen it.
 * I'm unsure of the accuracy of the ngram results, because the most common method of using "£ stg" is as simultaneously a prefix and suffix (eg. £10,000 stg), so if there are numerals in a reference separating £ and stg it may not list it. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Postscript:
 * I did an experiment with ngram, using numerals in the search terms: £100 stg and GB£100: the results showed that historically £ stg was very widely used, GB£ started appearing in 1991 and peaked in 2005 and now they sort of jockey for place with each other, however at present £ stg is marginally ahead. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do have a proposal, we can hash something out like we did for the lira. I think it is safe to say there is no absolutely standard notation, multiple different ones are in use. I am reticent about considering ISO codes to be notation at all, as their main function is to be a machine readable code rather than an abbreviation. I could write up a draft section mentioning and providing citations for all the ones I can actually find decent sources for.
 * Searching Google Books manually for "GB£" produces some odd hits. When not combined with the word "currency" it produces completely irrelevant results. If one does search "currency GB£" it still produces strange results, like "gigabyte" and "George Berkeley" before showing anything relevant. I got 30 pages in and the only ones combining it with "£" were two children's maths books, a 2005 book on Risk Management, a 1986 book on Multinational Finance, a book on the history of remittances between the UK and Nigeria, a book on post-modern art, and a book on the history of gold mining in Australia. None of the "GB£" hits were on the first page.
 * When I searched "currency £ stg" in the same span of 30 pages of results I counted 68 instances of some variantion of "£stg", "£ stg", "stg£" etc. And the results were not all vintage, most were published this century and many in the last decade. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The ISO code is not "a standard coding system for machines", it is a mechanism for unique identification and disambiguation between similarly named currencies and is routinely used anywhere that rigour and international recognisability is required.
 * As I wrote at Italian Lira, examples of use do not meet the wp:reliable source criterion: what is required is descriptions of use. But if the material amounts to no more than a sentence or two embedded in a paragraph, the standards aren't as high (to an extent, the reverse of the Sagan criterion ("great claims need great evidence") applies: incidental claims can manage with incidental evidence.
 * Thus, provided the mention is largely incidental, I won't pursue the argument. But if you want to propose even a subsection, I will insist that the reliable sources criteria are fully met. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The majority of style guides, such as Bow, ILO, WHO, Bloomsbury, and Imperial College London, explicitly advise against using "GBP" in most contexts, especially in prose. All of these support the use of an unqualified "£" for sterling. So while "GBP" may be "commonly used", if used as a currency sign it is about as official as "£ stg.", "stg", "STG" etc. as it does not have the general support of most publications except in technical and coding contexts TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * GBP as a currency sign is illiterate: if I gave the impression that I thought otherwise, it was unintentional. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh. thank you, it is something I have often seen done, and I thought you were defending this usage. Please accept my apologies. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed draft
Here is a draft I have produced for the last paragraph in the "Symbol" section:

The pound sign is used in almost all contexts without any qualifying abbreviation (eg. £12,000). Abbreviations such as £ stg or £stg. (eg. £12,000 stg or £stg.12,000), Stg or STG (eg. Stg 12,000 or STG 12,000) , GB£ (eg. GB£12,000), or the ISO code (eg. GBP 12,000) may be used, but these uses are usually not necessary and their use is rarely supported, and may even be warned against, by style guides.


 * This is a good start, no significant disagreements here. I suggest these revisions:


 * 1) Many citations for the same statement are only needed for controversial statements. So I suggest that three are enough. Notable style guides recommend that the pound sign be used in almost all contexts without any abbreviation to indicate sterling.[ref ILO, UNAIDS, Bloomsbury Academic]
 * 2) £12,000 stg. and £stg 12,000 are different notations so need to be cited separately. I suspect that there are far more examples of the forer than of the latter.
 * 3) Citation 8 is a not a good one to cite as it may disappear without notice. Redundant anyway, the World Bank is good enough alone,
 * 4) warned against in style guides needs citations - same as already provided, I assume? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

[As an aside, MOS:BOLD prohibits use of bold for all but wp:redirect targets and in the first mention only. I haven't checked, I expect that some are valid but not all.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. I'm still a very new contributor, so I'm new to all this.
 * Notable style guides recommend that the pound sign be used without any abbreviation to indicate sterling (eg. £12,000) Abbreviations such as £ stg  (eg. £12,000 stg), £stg (eg. £stg.12,000), Stg or STG (eg. Stg 12,000 or STG 12,000)  , GB£ (eg. GB£12,000), or the ISO code (eg. GBP 12,000) may be used, but these uses are usually not necessary and their use is rarely supported, and may even be warned against, by style guides.
 * I am sorry for some misunderstandings and miscommunications, I'm very new to this lark so I have a lot to learn.
 * Haven't been able to find a decent source using "GB£", do you have one we could put in? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have objection to 'GBP' belonging to the 2nd sentence - it's inaccurate to say (GBP) uses are usually not necessary and their use is rarely supported, and may even be warned against, by style guides.
 * The GBP description in current text remains accurate: it is normal in modern usage to avoid using the £ sign completely and disambigate by using the relevant ISO 4217 codes (GBP, EGP or LBP, for example).
 * Find a way to separate GBP from your description for stg, £stg, etc.
 * Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The style guides say to avoid using "GBP" and advise the use of the pound sign without qualification. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Widely circulated reports involving several currencies in multinational settings cannot avoid using GBP followed by detailed figures. GBP code is how you locate its value online. GBP utility is clearly at a level above stg, £stg... and should not be lumped under that clause usually not necessary and their use is rarely supported, and may even be warned against, by style guides. GBP is wholeheartedly supported by all my gadgets. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To make my suggestions more concrete:
 * The pound sign is used in almost all several contexts without any qualifying abbreviation (eg. £12,000).
 * In many online and financial reporting settings the ISO code 'GBP' may be relied upon and / or used as a symbol (eg. GBP 12,000).
 * In other settings abbreviation such as £ stg or £stg ... may be used, but these uses are usually not necessary... by style guides. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You did not read it properly.
 * The style guides say nothing about the other abbreviations, but they do warn against use of ISO codes.
 * International Labour Organization: "the ISO code should not be used systematically"
 * Imperial College London: "In text, use the ‘£’ symbol when figures are used... Do not use ‘GBP’ in prose"
 * World Health Organisation: "Do not use WHO’s three-letter currency codes (EUR, GBP, USD, etc.) in information products; they are for internal use only" TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Abbreviations such as... ISO code (eg. GBP 12,000) may be used, but these uses are
 * usually not necessary - WRONG
 * and their use is rarely supported - WRONG. In the online and automated reporting meaning of "rarely supported"
 * and may even be warned against, by style guides. - OK
 * So separate ISO from that category of unnecessary, rarely supported, and may be warned against. Or don't touch existing text it is normal in modern usage to avoid using the £ sign completely and disambigate by using the relevant ISO 4217 codes (GBP, EGP or LBP, for example). Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So you can't tell the difference between coding and the style guides for major organisations, understood. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Text below ok subject to @Friedman's approval and one more change: Abbreviations such as ... may be used, but these distinctions are usually unnecessary. whenever necessary., removing our opinion on the writer's "necessity". Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is my final draft ready for insertion into the article. Notable style guides recommend that the pound sign be used without any abbreviation or qualification to indicate sterling (eg. £12,000) Abbreviations such as £ stg  (eg. £12,000 stg), £stg (eg. £stg.12,000), Stg or STG (eg. Stg 12,000 or STG 12,000)  , GB£ (eg. GB£12,000), or the ISO code (eg. GBP 12,000) may be used, but these distinctions are usually unnecessary.
 * First and foremost, it is not for me to approve or disaprove, I'm just another editor too; I just happen to be a bit fussy about ensuring that assertions are supported by evidence. Consensus rules. As hammered out between you (thank you both for working positively to resolve differences), we have a text that is almost ready to roll.
 * Slight tweak for clarity:Abbreviations such as £ [...] stg (eg. £12,000 stg), £stg (eg. £stg.12,000) (inserted an ellipsis to better distinguish between the forms.
 * The markup will need correcting: I don't have time right now but the MOS says don't use bold except for redirect and do use italics for use mention distinction. Also, citations go after punctuation, not before.
 * Citation for GB£ will be v difficult to find because Google Search doesn't discriminate. But when GBP was written, it must have been well established. Does anyone think it sufficiently controversial to be a show stopper? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This seems like a good tweak. I'd be happy to include it. Might be best to add "GB£" when we can find a decent citation and go ahead without it for now. I have set up some redirects so £ stg, £stg and stg all work. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we've done it! This might well be the perfect balance. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

i confirm the ending "unless disambiguations are necessary" satisfactorily addresses concerns re: inserting our opinions on necessity. thanks Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I apologise unreservedly for my brusque attitude earlier. Things can get a bit heated sometimes. I'll try to control myself in future. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Move request
I believe it would be more appropriate that this page be located at "Sterling" (with the existing "Sterling" page being moved to "Sterling (disambiguation)". "Pound sterling" is the name of a unit of the currency and not of the currency itself. It is for this same reason I am strongly in favour of documenting the abbreviation "STG", because I think there is a strong case to be made that "GBP" is simply the ISO-compatible code for the largest unit of the currency, while STG/stg. is the abbreviation for the overall name of the currency. I know I have already drawn comparisons with the renminbi before (viz. abbreviations), but I believe it is valid because both are instances of a currency whose name is not the name of its main unit and whose ISO codes do not resemble abbreviations of the currency names (unlike "USD" for example). The names of, and distinctions between, the pound sterling (the unit) and sterling (the currency) can be easily made clear for casual glances by fleshing out the distinctions already drawn within the article if this proposal is accepted. Indeed I would be happy to work on that while discussion is ongoing. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * DISAGREE on moving this to 'Sterling' and switching to 'Sterling coins' and 'Sterling banknotes' (explained over there - get consensus there before moving forward here ) Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (REPEATED HERE) Encyclopedia Britannica, the great repository of British knowledge, precisely puts 'pound sterling' front-and-center as Britain's monetary unit. In turn it links to 'sterling' as a standard for silver purity. And EB has been refereed reference way longer than Wiki, no?
 * EB and the rest of us are not hung up at all with 'pound sterling' as British currency so let's leave it as such. 'Sterling' is silver purity in modern popular minds, and secondarily a descriptive for British currency. 'Pound sterling' nails it unambiguously as modern British currency.
 * The casual wiki reader's already getting cognitive dissonance over recent edits with UK currency changed from the more concrete 'pound sterling' to the more ambiguous 'sterling' (which is either the currency, the silver fineness, and the original 8th century coin). And EB describing 'sterling' as the 8th century English coin is probably the best front-and-center definition if only to help explain its two modern-day meanings.
 * https://www.britannica.com/topic/pound-sterling
 * Pound sterling, the basic monetary unit of Great Britain, divided (since 1971) decimally into 100 new pence. The term is derived from the fact that, about 775, silver coins known as “sterlings” were issued in the Saxon kingdoms, 240 of them being minted from a pound of silver, the weight of which was probably about equal to the later troy pound. Hence, large payments came to be reckoned in “pounds of sterlings,” a phrase later shortened to “pounds sterling.
 * https://www.britannica.com/art/sterling-metallurgy
 * sterling, the standard of purity for silver.
 * Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (REPEATED HERE) There's also no basis elevating 'sterling' to exactly the same status as 'RMB' and to the exclusion of 'pound sterling'. Modern China created the word 'renminbi' from inception to exclusively mean the 'people's currency' post-1949. While 'sterling' went through a millennia-long evolution, from the penny coin, to either a silver standard, or the British currency.
 * 'Renminbi' leads to a single unambiguous definition. 'Sterling' leads to two modern-day definitions and one historical definition. For this reason alone this 'sterling' wiki adventurism should be put to an end. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In British English, the language this article must use, there is little evidence of the phrase "pound sterling" being particularly common. It seems to be a hybrid of the popular press describing the currency as "the pound" and the actual name of the currency. All the evidence I can find strongly indicates sterling is the name of the currency and that this is generally accepted and understood. The Bank of England and the Royal Mint, surely some of the most important sources for information on the currency, both refer to the currency as "sterling" in their published documentation. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just searched the digitised archived debates of the British Parliament, 26,891 references to "sterling" (all the results I saw were related to the currency, not to the production of silver or whatever), but only 3,716 references to "pound sterling". TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Granted, "sterling" is less ambiguous than currency names such as "dollar" or "peso", but we seldom (if not never) title currency pages merely by the currency's name. For instance, the page on the Georgian currency is titled "Georgian lari", not simply "lari". On the other hand, I am fine with the British currency referred to simply as the "sterling" within the page, much as we avoid repeating the words "Canadian dollar" verbatim in our article for the currency, instead referring to the currency simply as the "dollar". NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Granted, "sterling" is less ambiguous than currency names such as "dollar" or "peso", but we seldom (if not never) title currency pages merely by the currency's name. For instance, the page on the Georgian currency is titled "Georgian lari", not simply "lari". On the other hand, I am fine with the British currency referred to simply as the "sterling" within the page, much as we avoid repeating the words "Canadian dollar" verbatim in our article for the currency, instead referring to the currency simply as the "dollar". NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Banknotes of the pound sterling which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions of Sterling and Pound Sterling
Discussion ongoing here Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling

These dictionary definitions are provided for the final rewrite of article "Pound sterling" and they all agree:
 * Sterling is NOT THE MONEY of the UK. Sterling is the MONEY SYSTEM of the UK - a mere pointer to consult the rules, denominations, coins & notes. And what do the rules say?
 * Cambridge: Pound sterling = money used in the UK. Also: pound = money used in the UK. And finally, pound = unit of money used in the UK
 * Oxford: Pound sterling = unit of money in the UK. Pound = unit of money in the UK. Sterling means "system of UK money" and not "UK money".
 * Sterling = UK money is an obsolete and deprecated definition. Maybe true for the original sterling silver 1d (penny). But not for all other coins. And already struck out of dictionary definitions! So why use this as Wikipedia definition?

So let's review:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pound-sterling
 * Pound sterling: the official name of the pound used as money in the U.K.
 * 2nd half of sentence: Pound is the money used in the UK
 * 1st half of sentence: Pound sterling is official name of the pound, making it also the money used in the UK.


 * Pound: the standard unit of money used in the U.K. and some other countries
 * Hence Pound is also the standard unit of money used in the UK (pound is the money & the unit)


 * Sterling: the British system of currency, based on the pound
 * Ayyy, Cambridge does not define sterling as the British money! Sterling is merely the SYSTEM OF CURRENCY - the structure of rules on what's lawful, what's your coins, your notes, your units. Sterling is a mere pointer that says "consult the rules". And what do the rules say? See above
 * Officially: The pound sterling is the money used in the UK
 * Colloquially: The pound is the money used in the UK
 * So Cambridge never said sterling is British money. It only said pound sterling is the money used in the UK

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/pound_1?q=pound+sterling
 * Pound sterling: (specialist term for) the unit of money in the UK
 * Pound: the unit of money in the UK
 * Sterling: the money system of the UK, based on the pound


 * Ouch so Oxford also never said sterling is UK money! Only that sterling is UK money system i.e. sterling means "consult the law on British money".
 * And what does the law say? The pound sterling is the unit of money in the UK.

Other dictionaries agree:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/pound-sterling
 * Pound sterling: the official name for the standard monetary unit of the United Kingdom
 * Pound: the unit of money which is used in Britain.
 * Sterling: the money system of Great Britain.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/pound-sterling Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pound Sterling and 'GBP' each means the official currency of the United Kingdom
 * Pound Sterling means the lawful money of the United Kingdom.

So what even is this currency's name?
I have been accused of fait accompli by an incident report for using "sterling" as the currency's name in text (I'm also accused of the same on the Israeli pound's article by changing instances of "lira" to "pound"). I am not proposing any changes to the article or any others whatsoever in making this section, merely asking for opinions on consensus.

I will put my cards on the table and freely state that it seems clear to me that the name of the currency is "sterling", and "the pound", "British pound", "pound sterling", or similar terms are descriptions of the main unit, not names of the currency. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Here are some citations that show that the BoE routinely uses the word "Sterling" alone as the name of the currency – but it also uses the term "pound sterling".


 * Annual amounts outstanding of consortium banks' sterling notes in circulation total (in sterling millions) not seasonally adjusted
 * Currently banks with UK private sector sterling deposits or sterling loans over £1,000mn, total assets over £3,000mn or eligible liabilities over £400mn report data on a monthly basis.
 * "However, following massive rises in interest rates and intervention in the foreign exchange markets that failed to move sterling from the floor of the ERM, ..."
 * The word "sterling" is used alone in professional media. See this example from The Economist: "By contrast, there is little doubt that the Bank of England stands behind gilts; no one worries that Britain might leave sterling".


 * See also Sterling area, Sterling crisis.
 * Nevertheless, "pound sterling" is the name used in generalist media and so is preferred on Wikipedia per WP:COMMONNAME.
 * When a given article is about another kind of pound (for example the Israeli pound or the Australian pound) that was [at least initially] defined by its relationship to the pound sterling then the text has to say that clearly and to use "Sterling" there may sacrifice clarity for technical "correctness".
 * Nowadays the term "sterling" is a more conceptual than practical: it is a long time since you could walk into the Bank of England with a pound note and demand 240 sterling silver pennies.
 * So the best answer that I can come up with is "it depends". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My personal feeling is that if the term "pound sterling" is used it should be in relation to a specific sum (eg. "the Israeli pound was pegged at one pound sterling") and not things such as "the United Kingdom's currency is the pound sterling" as a definite article when not describing a particular sum of money. In my experience (not saying this is an iron cast citation or anything) generalist British media tends to use "the pound" with no qualifier at all and generalist American media tends to use "the British pound" in the same way it uses "the Chinese yuan", which is a description of the unit's nationality and not its name per se (Egyptian banknotes for example state their denomination as being "Fifty Egyptian pounds"). While sterling is not connected to sterling silver anymore I don't think that lessens its value as the name of the currency; A peso is no longer a Spanish silver dollar, a dinar is no longer an especially pure gold coin. Until 1920 at least the coins were actually made of sterling silver, it has been many centuries since a pound literally weighed a tower pound.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My personal view is that "sterling" stands alone as a noun when the currency is referred to in an abstract sense. The Bank of England may be called upon to support sterling, for example, if the exchange rate for sterling falls. If it continues to fall, I might not want a payment to be in sterling, especially if I am venturing beyond the sterling zone.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)