Talk:Slovak koruna

merge
Slovak koruna (WWII) is a tiny page. See Yugoslav dinar for a page dealing with multiple nations, all of which had a currency that could be called "Yugoslav dinar". This page should be like that one, unless/until it gets too big. Mom2jandk 22:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No, this is an absolutely inacceptable argument. Those alleged "multiple nations" you are mentionning are always the same nation, while the WWII-koruna is a DISTINCT currency having a different name (Koruna slovenská) as compared to the modern koruna, having no legal or economomic connection whatsoever with it and relating to a state having no economic or legal relation to the current state. It is a historic currency. If you find the page "tiny", then expand it; and we have thousands of other "tiny pages"- are you going to merge them all? Juro 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While I see Juro's point, I think we've got enough precedent cases for me to support this move. [[Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I also see Juro's point, and as the article expands, I probably won't have a problem with it being split. I just don't see a need for separate articles now. I do not plan to merge all other tiny pages. This one has an obvious place (where people would search for "Slovak koruna" anyway). I know that pages will expand over time, and situations will change. My recommendation was based on the situation now. Yugoslav dinar has exactly the same situation, where Serbia and Montenegro is not recognized as a successor state to Yugoslavia yet its dinar is included in Yugoslav dinar (until it became the Serbian dinar). I don't think this is the only case, but it's the one I know most about. Ingrid 19:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, while I can't think of another example where the states in question have no "official" connection to each other–though honestly, it's rather difficult not to connect Slovakia and Slovakia ;)–we've got quite a lot of articles which are about subsequent currencies with the same name, or currencies re-introduced a few times with the same name being kept. I say merge now, and split again later once we've got a large article. (Yep, I'm an eventualist...) [[Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the Yugoslav dinar never ceased to exist and always refered to the country centered in Belgrade, so in this case I can understand that it is the same currency, because it effectively IS still the same currency. In our case, however, there are 50 ! years between those two currencies and they have (in Slovak) different names! During those 50 years there was another state and another currency on the territory in question. I see no parallels. We even distinguish between libras and liras in countries were they have been just renamed (nothing else), so why shouldn't we distinguish between two linguistically, legally, historically and physically totally different currencies?? Juro 03:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said, I do understand your point. To give another example (this time with over 60 years between), see Estonian kroon. Serbian dinar is also another one with a long break in between, now that I think about it. And I was just looking at one in South America.... Chilean peso. This is not an uncommon situation -- I did not go looking for those examples, they're ones I've happened across. Ingrid 03:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * But those have at least the same name...Even though I would split those articles too, if it was me to decide on this. Juro 04:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Juro's argument against the merge appears to be based on the distinct names of the currencies (only apparent in the Slovak language). This is certaily a valid point but we ought to realise that in the Yugoslav dinar article we merge several currencies into a single article, even though there was a five year interuption in Yugoslavia's existence. I favour the merge in the English language Wikipedia as this will aid usability. There are precedents in the case of Brazilian cruzeiro, Chilean peso and others. Dove1950

Merge :), both currencies have the same name, but at a different time. I would prefer a single article covering the whole time span. MikeZ 10:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm in favour of a merge of these two articles. It just makes it easier to find the earlier currency. Dove1950 14:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I never knew this discussion was going on :) Merge and expand entires if you feel they deserve their own page.   Joe I  20:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I also support the merge. And I'm gonna do it now. --Chochopk 04:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

plural
See WikiProject Numismatics/Style
 * Use the local name for the denomination

which implies using grammar of the plural of the local language.

Have you heard of "Japanese yens"?

See also Polish złoty, Polish coins and banknotes, Slovenian tolar, and Norwegian krone ("100 øre" and "50 øre", not "100 øres" and "50 øres"). People don't seem to have a problem there. Isn't that consensus? --Chochopk 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And what is "1 korunas"?

--Chochopk 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If we need more people in order to build a concensus on using local forms of the denomination names, count me in. Dove1950 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The form korún is not used always, it depends on the position in the sentence. Secondly, the plural of koruna is korunas (or koruna) everywhere and is used I see it everyday; the form "korún" does not exist in English or any other foreign languages and is an incredible demonstration of linguistic ignorance peculiar to all Americans. Juro 00:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please tell me, where is your everywhere?
 * Can you answer my question about Japanese yens?
 * So how is it that korún is not an English word and koruna is? Is ringgit an English word? Is lev an English word?
 * Using the words "linguistic ignorance" is hardly any convincing argument. In fact, I do know something about plurals in Slavic languages.
 * --Chochopk 00:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chochopk and Dove. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ringgit and lev appear in the OED, (with plural ringgits, btw); they are the English names for their currencies. Unfortunately, the K's have not been updated since 1989. Septentrionalis 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this an ENGLISH language encyclopaedia? It is. Does any normal English speaking person or text use the form korún. He does not. Is this a word used very frequently - every day - in and with respect to Slovakia or Czechia so that this can be veriefied? It is. Which form does any normal English speaker or text use? Koruna or korunas in any instance. Do English language dictonaries contain the form korún or any other of the many grammatical cases for this or any other Slavic languages? They do not. Are you more clever than they are for such a frequent word? You are not. Irrespective of this: Is the form korún used always in Slovak? It is not. So how the hell do you dare to make such a ridiculous both theoretically and empirically endlessly stupid claim? ..The fact that you think that taking over from another language ignoring anything (rules of the source language, rules of the target language, usage etc.) is OK, is linguistic ignorance par execellence. Juro 13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First, you still haven't answer my questions above.


 * And just because an average English speaking person does not use the word does not mean we should never use it here. And using an English dictionary as a constraint is out of the question here. While you're at it, why don't you change koruna, korona, krone, and krona to crown (because only crown is the real English form). Or even better, change yuan, won, yen to "circle", because it's what they mean. Let's see, 1 USD = 8 Chinese circles = 113 Japanese circles. Why is the article "Alan Greenspan" not "Alain Greenspan" or even "Alain Vertspan" on French wikipedia? It's a name! "Triomphe" is not an English word, but try Arc de Triomphe.


 * And for the last time, I know there are many ways to make a Slavic word plural. Use nominative plural for unknown number of many, use genitive plural for known quantity with numbers ending 5-9 and 0, use genitive singular for known quantity with numbers ending 2, 3, 4, use nominative singular as the dictionary form. And more cases for different scenarios. And that may be different from one Slavic language to another.


 * I dare you, if you can change "Junichiro Koizumi" to "Pure-First-Son Little-Spring" and all plural instances of yuan, won, yen to yuans, wons, and yens on English wikipedia without mass protest, then I'll shut up. --Chochopk 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Other languages on WWII koruna
This is the back side of the 1000 Ks. Isn't "tausend" German, "тысяча" Russian, and "ezer" Hungarian? --Chochopk 06:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The value is indicated in the ethnic languages of Slovakia. However, there was no Russian ethnicity in Slovakia but Rusyns (a people close to Ukrainians). There's very little difference between the two languages (especially in the case of numerals), and Ukrainian was not recognised in Russia for ages or was declared a dialect. However, Ukrainians also tend to consider Rusyns as a subgroup of the Ukrainian nation. So "тысяча" might be either Russian, Ukrainian or Rusyn. The same situation for Hungarian pengő, Hungarian korona and Austro-Hungarian krone. At least in the former two cases I would add a Rusyn language template (ry - no such exists yet), since the "Ukrainians" in Hungary are usually referred to as Rusyns. In my opinion, "тысяча" on the Slovak banknotes is also Rusyn - like on the interwar Czechoslovak banknotes. (The somewhat autonomic Subcarpathian region in interwar Czechoslovakia was called "Podkarpatská Rus" or sometimes "Rusínsko").Timur lenk 08:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

One koruna, many koruny
According to the CIA World Factbook, the currency is called the Slovak koruna. When there are more than one koruna, they are called koruny (in English sources they are also called korunas, which is less proper). As this is the English version of Wikipedia, they should be listed in English terms; koruna and koruny should be used to the exclusion of other foreign language forms. While I am not prepared to transform all of the instances of korún (with accent) and halierov in the article, koruna/koruny and hal or h are the forms that should appear. Korun and halierov should appear only when the Slovak language is being discussed (as currently in the parenthetical section in the introduction and in the first paragraph after the introduction). 67.100.185.234 23:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The changes you have made are based on a single source which disagrees with what is clearly written on the Slovak banknotes. The plural forms are koruny and korún when they appear after numerals, with koruny used with the number 2 and korún used with 5 and above. As is clearly stated in WikiProject Numismatics/Style, currency articles use the local form of the currency names. Dove1950 14:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't worth my time. You've cited a WikiProject to which you are a primary contributor.  The project's style suggestions contradict Wikipedia style guidelines that provide for a foreign term not to replace its English equivalent.  Do as you like. 67.100.185.234 15:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While I would normally rejoice over this much interest in the Slovak language and in liguistics in general, the current form of the page appears to be too far from the mainstream. Wikipedia is not too fond of original research and even though you correctly observed what is printed on Slovak banknotes, this does not represent the common usage in English texts. I'd urge you to reconsider, since this IMHO represents a marginal (if perhaps correct) POV and borders on silliness. 24.5.28.31 08:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing silly about being correct. Please provide an explanation for korunách so it doesn't cause any confusion. Dove1950 10:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just my 2c. Either use the proper English translation forms (crown and crowns), or (if we are bound to follow Wiki numismatic guidelines) all the (3) Slovak forms properly. "Sto koruny" does make as little sense as "one dollars". Just about being precise. BTW the 3 correct forms are: 1 koruna (singular); 2, 3, 4 koruny (plural A); 5 and more korún (plural B, with the diacritical mark which can (?) be deleted in diacritics-free transcriptions) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Gazdík (talk • contribs) 03:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted
This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:1coronaslovacca1994back.jpg, found on Slovak koruna, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Exchange rate of 1993 koruna
The article shows the exchange rate versus the Euro, and that it was at par with the Czech koruna in 1993. It does not mention whether or not the 1993 Slovak koruna remained at par with (pegged to) the Czech koruna, or if it floated independently. If anyone knows the answer, please add it to the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, change name of the article, because the name is Slovenská koruna, translation is Slovak Crown, symbol is Sk and the hybrid "Slovak koruna" is unbelievable muck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.135.132.215 (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Changeover from Czechoslovak to Slovak banknotes
The article doesn't go into a lot of detail about this process worked. From what I understand the transition was quite a messy affair with official (Czech or Slovak) stamps being attached to old Czechoslovak banknotes and there were problems with stamps being fraudulently removed (or accidently coming off). Does anyone have photos or know why was the transition handled in such an apparently clumsy manner ? 2.127.209.195 (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)