Talk:Venezuelan bolívar/Archives/2018

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Billete 10 anverso.png
 * Billete 10 reverso.png
 * Billete 100 anverso.png
 * Billete 100 reverso.png
 * Billete 2 reverso.png
 * Billete 20 anverso.png
 * Billete 20 reverso.png
 * Billete 200 anverso.png
 * Billete 200 reverso.png
 * Billete 5 anverso.png
 * Billete 5 reverso.png
 * Billete 50 anverso.png
 * Billete 50 reverso.png
 * Billete 500 anverso.png
 * Billete 500 reverso.png
 * Billete de Bs 2.png

Merge proposal

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why has there a separate article Sovereign Bolivar been created? This main article is supposed to contain the information about the current version of the bolivar, and it already does so, therefore, the new article can only lead to redundancies. I'll add merger templates. --Zumbo (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support merge. At the moment the Sovereign Bolivar article is very short, and as far as I can see there is no need for a separate article. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral - there is no need for a separate article but it could make the article more readable, see comment below. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the merging of the Sovereign Bolivar article into the Venezuelan bolívar article. Ntmamgtw (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support. See arguments below in the discussion. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the merging of the Sovereign Bolivar article into the Venezuelan bolívar article. --Misha Wolf (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Two articles are clearly unnecessary here. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why are you helping the CIA to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt by merging two different currencies into one article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.143.183.120 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support There really does not need to be two articles. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are lots of examples of replacement currencies getting articles of their own: e.g. Peruvian inti → Peruvian sol, Brazilian Cruzeiro → Brazilian Real, Old Israeli Shekel → New Israeli Shekel, etc. If Venezuela replaces the Sovereign Bolivar in a month or collapses, then it should be merged, but if the Sovereign Bolivar turns out to be a lasting currency like the ones listed above, it deserves its own article. --Chumash11 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If the sovereign bolivar gains notability and a different context from its two predecessors, then it will deserve its own article. Until then, your argument is a WP:CRYSTAL assumption that it will.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  23:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The Venezuelan bolívar page already lists the original bolívar, then the fuerte, and now has the information on the soberano. We don't need a three-sentence duplicate article for Venezuelan currency. Keep as redirect. Kingsif (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The number of separate articles in other Wikipedia languages is growing: FR, RU, PT, HU. Moreover, this topic is very popular in search engines now (source). --Lewoniewski (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Venezuela is in hyperinflation, and there's less change to stay bolivar soberano to the Venezuelan currency. But we can just give a chance after 2022, if Venezuela don't switch bolivar soberano to the fourth version. After all there is bad future for that currency. So i don't want that currency or any next unstable bolivars as a separate pages. Nothing much to say at this page. --95.28.254.197 (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * strongly oppose new currency. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Unlike situations like Brazilian real, this is a simple case of lopping off zeroes, much like the Turkish lira, Yugoslav dinar, Romanian leu, Russian ruble, Polish złoty, etc. There's a connection to the petro (cryptocurrency), which is a convoluted enough topic on its own, and considering that it's also connected to the previous bolivar fuerte, that's another reason to merge. The sovereign bolivar isn't different enough of a topic from bolivar and bolivar fuerte to warrant a new article (as can be seen by the fact that there's basically nothing in that article that isn't already in this one), and keeping separate articles on this serves only to confuse readers and invite POV forks, which are going to be inevitable given the controversy surrounding everything Venezuelan in this decade.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  23:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I corrected something in your text, please revert if I made a mistake. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was a little embarrassing :)  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  23:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: Still referred to as the bolivar and has only removed the zeros.ZiaLater ( talk ) 06:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: For the reasons listed above. — Zzyzx Wolfe  (TALK CONT ) 23:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: It's still the same currency, the bolivar.-- HC PUNX  KID 20:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
The article is a bit of a mess, with errors and history being mixed into the bank note section. Maybe it would be better to separate the bolívar, the bolívar fuerte and sovereign bolivar, if only to make the article more readable. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try to clean up the Venezuelan bolívar page. Kingsif (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If separating the article would make it more readable (a subject on which I am neutral), I believe it would be best to divide it along other lines. We could, for instance, make an article to discuss its banknotes. This already exists, among others, for the the British pound, the Canadian dollar, and the Japanese yen. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There needs to be 3 separate articles - Venezuelan bolivar, Venezuelan Strong Bolivar, and Venezuelan Sovereign Bolivar, as they are all 3 separate currencies. There are several articles in relation to the German Mark, including ones for the Rentenmark, the Reichsmark, and the Ostmark, so the Venezuelan Bolivar needs to have 3 articles, even though the currency names all have Bolivar in their names.

Photos of the banknotes need to be aligned correctly - with the obverses depicted aligned vertically and the reverses depicted aligned horizontally. - (101.98.104.241 (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC))
 * If each is to have it's article, which I am neutral on, should the Spanish or English name for the currency be used? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The reason I support the merge and believe it is best to have just one article for the bolívar is that the fuerte and soberano are largely of the same historical era (the Chavez-Maduro government). This is in contrast to the distinction between the Reichsmark and the Deutschmark (Weimar and Nazi vs. post-war eras), the Hungarian pengő and forint (pre-war and post-war), the Soviet ruble and the Russian ruble (USSR vs. post-USSR eras), and the shekel of the ancient world and the Israeli new shekel. The bolívares fuerte and soberano are more like the Zimbabwean dollar, which has had three re-denominations totalling four different currencies in the era of Robert Mugabe's presidency. It is, I believe, a good thing that we do not have four different articles for these highly related Zimbabwean currencies and I strongly support keeping only one bolívar article. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be worth having two articles, one for bolívar pre-2008 and one for post-2008 about both the fuerte and soberano variants? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would keep all three articles together. The pre-2008 bolívar was the currency endorsed by the Chavez-Maduro government for nine years, almost as long as the bolívar fuerte. Even though it existed since the 19h century, it also belongs, in my view, very well to the Chavez-Maduro era.
 * Were the article much larger, I would argue to separate its content into articles such as "History of the Venezuelan Bolívar", "Venezuelan bolívar banknotes" and so on, not on the basis of these re-denominations. Dividing the content along the latter lines would likely make it more difficult for the reader to get a general view of these strongly related currencies. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would perhaps be beneficial to have articles on the bolívar before hyperinflation, and the bolívar, fuerte, and soberano from hyperinflation to present — that is, if there was enough page length. Kingsif (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sovereign bolivar banknotes
I've merged the Sovereign Bolivar article into this one per the merge discussion outcome. There were pictures of banknotes in the article, but I chose not to add them here because they were uploaded in May and are dated "enero 2018" (January?), and they may be copyright violations. If anyone has RS that the banknote designs are current and are under a free license (the license currently listed on their Commons pages is obviously wrong), I'll add them to the banknotes table.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  23:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)