Talk:Pound sterling/Archive 4

UKP
We used to refer to British currency as UKP (United Kingdom Pound), but what I see these days is GBP. What happened, when, and why? FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When? Where? Why? How?
 * ISO 4217 (which is what defines these TLAs for currencies), has been around since 1973, fifty years ago. I guess if you can find a reliable source that defines it as valid (not just a passing mention of use somewhere), it can get a mention. But not before. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Names in other languages
Maybe it's worth mentioning that while most other languages use variations of the word "pound" (such as the German "Pfund"), some languages use the Latin term "libra" (Spanish, Czech, Slovak...) or a derived word (French "livre"). Is it worth adding? Johnnyjanko (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And Italian uses Sterlina. The article Pound (currency) might be a better home, if you can find a suitable source – this article is already too long. See also Carolingian pound, the foundation for the Germanic form. And French livre, which gives the origins of the Romance languages form. And £sd of course! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

STG yet again: Bold, revert, discuss
Per WP:BRD, I have reverted a large bold edit by IP editor. As has been discussed many times before, the present coverage in what is already a long article has been considered wp:DUE. Banned editor user:TheCurrencyGuy pushed it to death and the edit by this IP is disturbingly similar. But assuming good faith for the moment, the case for increased coverage must be made here first and consensus reached for the extent, if any, of increased coverage. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added a sentence to the #Currency code section, which should be enough given that it has been obsolescent for 50 years. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not at all sure the assertion that it is merely historical and "obsolescent for 50 years" is correct. The sources included in this article indicates it is still used for new systems and says nothing about any plans for it to be replaced with the ISO 4217 code. ISO 20022's listing cites it as the only RTGS and clearing code for sterling; some of the codes listed on this document are identical to their ISO 4217 codes (such as "CAD"), but others are not (such as "BDS" for the Barbadian dollar). If "STG" was only legacy usage the list would include both STG and GBP. 89.242.188.113 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ISO20022 is merely reporting that it is an abbreviation still recognised by CHAPS and gives it an alias for United Kingdom GBP.
 * The citation given has just one mention, Existing CHAPS FIN Y-Copy service(s), identified in field 103 in block 3 of the FIN-MT message, e.g. STG. Section 1.2 of main intro to the article says The CHAPS-ISO SWIFTNet services are an evolution of the current CHAPS-FIN services, so it is clearly being phased out. It does not say that it is being used for new systems. GBP is defined in ISO 4217 (1973, hence 50 years ago). NB that an example of use is not a valid citation: nothing in the source states that STG is a valid abbreviation for pound sterling.
 * The space allocated to such a marginal item must be wp:DUE: one sentence is adequate. If more detailed coverage is needed, then CHAPS is the appropriate article to put it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Barbadian dollar includes "BDS" (though does not cite the fact it is the RTGS and clearing code) and renminbi includes "RMB" even though it is neither an RTGS nor a clearing code, will you be pursuing the removal of RMB or relegating it to a historical footnote? CNY surely should trump RMB if GBP trumps STG. ISO 4217 is an old standard and demanding strict adherence to a single pretty old coding standard at the expense of even mentioning different existing abbreviations and codes is rather odd. Some countries such as Venezuela and Brazil are at risk of running out of potential ISO 4217 codes due to inflation so it is inevitable the standard will be replaced some day. I suspect this argument needs to be taken elsewhere for greater exposure because it is a broader issue than just this one page. OurangMedan (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But this article is not the place for that debate. ISO 4217 is unarguably the current standard and is used ubiquitously. You can try raising the status of those other abbreviations at talk:ISO 4217 or talk:Currency, but they are irrelevant here. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you might have been misreading the ISO 20022 documentation and the definition of what an external code is.
 * "The ISO 20022 messages may use internal or external code sets. External code sets are not included in a message schema and are approved by the SEGs. The purpose and value of externalizing a code set is to allow for a more frequent update of the code set by for example adding new codes in the set without impacting the version of the messages and the development cycle of the messages. In practice the external code sets follow a quarterly update cycle."


 * In short, it allows users to add new codes or change codes without having to modify the entire standard, thus they are not "obsolescent" or "legacy" codes, but valid codes for ISO 20022. OurangMedan (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But in the context of this article, that is peripheral and irrelevant. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It shows that the statement that STG is exclusively "historical" is not correct.
 * My proposal for the opening paragraph runs like this:
 * Sterling (ISO 4217 code: GBP, abbreviation: STG) is the currency of the United Kingdom and its associated territories.
 * I would also slightly amend the "currency codes" section, trimming the fat to read something like this:
 * The ISO 4217 currency code for sterling is "GBP", CHAPS and SWIFT use "STG" as the real-time gross settlement and clearing code.
 * Taking out the unsourced stuff about GBX/GBp and the idle speculation on how ISO formulated the code. OurangMedan (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Does anybody else have anything to say about this proposal? Surely it is better than the current mess filled with loose ends and unsourced assertions. OurangMedan (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason for this WP:BRD was your (or your alter-egos) scattergun approach to shove stg into multiple places in the article. The question has always been about how much coverage is due and proportionate.
 * Should it be in the lead? No, per WP:LEAD, the essential points of the article go there and in such a large article we have to be ruthlessly selective. This abbreviation is very 'back office' in banking; occasionally journalistic use is partly for variety (see also 'Cable') and partly for gnosticism. It is too peripheral. It appears in the infobox, that is adequate. STG (disambiguation) has a pointer to this article, so no-one will be left in the dark.
 * As I have told you many times before, examples of use are not valid citations. It is entirely to be expected that East African, Egyptian and Irish sources will consider it appropriate to disambiguate the word 'pound' because other pounds exist or have existed in those territories in recent memory.
 * The current text does not say exclusively historical sources, though that is where most "lay" readers are ever likely to encounter it. It would be reasonable to add a brief mention of continued use by CHAPS/SWIFT, if a defining citation can be found (not an example of use).
 * Yes, the the unsourced stuff about GBX/GBp and the idle speculation on how ISO formulated the code should definitely go.
 * --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not "scattergun" in my initial edit; I included it in two sections where it is most appropriate.
 * GBP is a line of machine code which is unintuitive and essentially meaningless to a lay person (hence the invention of erroneous backronyms to justify it)
 * STG is both a code (in certain contexts) and an abbreviation which Ngram results show is used about 3 fifths as often as "GBP" and thus is not nearly as insignificant as has been asserted (though we cannot say for certain what percentage of results were from blocks of data and what percentage were from prose use, so that could complicate matters). "STG" is not infact in the infobox at all.
 * The current text says "In historical sources, the abbreviation stg (in various styles) has been used to indicate sterling", so it implies to the reader that it is not current, which the news articles and code sets brought to the table disprove. The information about STG being the real time gross settlement and clearing code is hidden in a note, and that note claims it is only for legacy system usage, which it does not appear to be. If STG were as "obsolescent for 50 years" as you have stated then I am sure it would have disappeared many years ago; there cannot be many computer coding systems in present use that pre-date 1973.
 * Two of the sources that were offered for "STG POUND" were from territories that never used the sterling pound as their primary money of account: Kenya and India; British India used the rupee, Kenya did use sterling, but their unit of account was based on the shilling divided into 100 cents. Therefore I think it is a stretch to entirely dismiss "STG POUND".
 * OurangMedan (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * STG seems to be still used to denote British pounds. For example, see this Reuters article, which uses it in the title, or this BIS article. It would be unwise to remove it to the historical section. A better idea would be to mention this as a possible albeit non-standard and rarer abbreviation. Vgbyp (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the #Currency code section, no proposal to move it to the history section. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. It just said 'In historical sources' and that got me confused. But the point is that it is still in use, which means that it isn't only in historical sources. Another recent example would be the IMF using STG as an abbreviation in report on Cameroon released on July 10, 2023. Vgbyp (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "STG POUND" does seem to be used fairly regularly in FOREX contexts, SDR is also used often, despite the ISO currency code being "XDR". OurangMedan (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting that it uses the expression STG Pound just once, and in a table. No mention of e.g., Egyptian Pound so why did anyone think it necessary to disambiguate? The body of the report immediately preceding the table uses GBP. (The spread of six-month GBP SONIA over six-month USD SOFR is 1 basis point. For interest rates on currencies other than Euro, JPY, and GBP, the spread over six-month USD SOFR is 15 basis points. But apart from occasional anomalous uses such as this one, it is really quite rare. It is obsolescent but not obsolete: Google Ngram viewer shows that continued usage is small but not trivial. The reference to "historical sources" is because the abbreviation was heavily used when there were many other pounds in the British Empire and Commonwealth, so sources from that time predominate. So as I've said, this abbreviation needs to be covered in the article (and it is) but the coverage should be proportionate. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The table uses "US Dollar" as well, but specifies no other dollars, it is clearly using "STG" as an abbreviation.
 * There are more uses of "STG" on Ngram if one selects "case insensitive" (since the abbreviation can be initial capitalized, all caps, or all lower case). The Ngram results do not, unfortunately, tell us whether the results were from prose text or columns of data. I am not suggesting intensive use of STG, just noting it as an abbreviation and code that is used without making unsourced assertions on its status.
 * Personally I think just the pound sign with no abbreviation or ISO code suffices in all but historical sources, and in those few cases the word "sterling" appended will clear up any issue; there are no active currencies that frequently use the pound sign other than those at par with sterling so for modern day use no confusion will exist. OurangMedan (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

JMF is currently trying to get me banned by claiming I am a banned user, so I will leave this here if this is the last port of call for me: JMF has so far provided no citable sources for his assertions of "obsolescence" and "legacy", if something cannot be demonstrated by reliable sources surely we have no place stating it as fact. Keeping in bold unsourced assertions and using those assertions as a justification for keeping out citations is bad form.OurangMedan (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your account was created on 29 July 2023 at 12:14 - that is, yesterday; and also two days after this thread was started. Your as a registered user occurred just under six hours later, and was to this thread; since then, you have made six more edits to this page, all in this thread. Now some people might feel that these seven edits are not the kind of edits that a genuine newbie would make, so they may wonder what you might have previously done under a different moniker. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Editing the advice @ MOS:CURRENCY
The current advice is poorly worded and potentially creates more issues than it solves.

The specific line in question is this: "GBP, sterling's ISO 4217 code, should be used to disambiguate that currency from others. Avoid using stg. or GB£."

This is unclear and gives no aid to helping resolve problems comparing with currencies that never had ISO currency codes. It has resulted in some strange anomalies like in this diff; where an ISO code was crowbarred into a sentence about the early 18th century, prior to the existence of the United Kingdom or even the Kingdom of Great Britain. This has since been corrected, but I feel we should have more categorical advice in such circumstances.

My proposal is that this line be rewritten as this:
 * Do not append £ with abbreviations or codes (£123 STG or £123 GBP), in the vast majority of circumstances a simple pound sign alone will suffice to denote sterling. In those cases where disambiguation is absolutely necessary (for example if comparing with the historical Irish or South African pounds) qualify with the full word "sterling" (£123 sterling)

I would be grateful for perspectives on this. 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

(invited by the bot) For me (and other potential participants) I'd suggest clarifying exactly what instructions you are talking about including exactly where they are. North8000 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies: specifically here: under "currency symbols". 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you are discussing on the wrong page. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Pound sterling; discussions about altering a policy or guideline should be held on the corresponding talk page (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers), or at WP:VPP. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @JMF said I should make an RFC here. I did in fact begin a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. JMF claimed that because the original policy was a result of an RFC here then it would have to be overturned here also. I made this proposal over there, and was told it would have to be made here. 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed this is not the right page, but WT:MOSNUM is. This is a WP:TALKFORK of discussion already open over there. As for this specific proposal and the wording it's trying to change, the notion that "GB£" or "UK£" should not be used but only "£" by itself or "GBP" is nonsense some rando made up out of nowhere, and inconsistent with our general treatement of currencies, which is to use the country code and the currency symbol at first occurrence if the context isn't already clear (no need to specify what "£" means in an article that's already entirely about the UK) or when comparing currencies.  The pound sterling isn't "magically special" and doesn't need a divergent alleged rule written about it, so a proposal to makes tweak to the divergent alleged rule is a waste of time. The divergence should just be excised.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I said no such thing and did not tell you to do anything. Read what I wrote again. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I'm just confused and have no idea what's going on. 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why was the RFC here if it was about the MOS? I.... What is going on? I have no idea how to navigate or understand this website's processes..... 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)