Template talk:Inflation/Archive 2

Nominal vs. real GDP
Recommending a "nominal GDP per capita" to be used in adjusting large capital expenditures (incl. government) seems like a folly to me: wouldn't a "real GDP per capita" be a much more relevant measure to adjust for inflation? "Per capita" portion of the measure is a useful adjustment when using GDP to compare large-scale expenditures, as it normalizes for the size of the economy in question. But using nominal GDP instead of real GDP seems to defeat the very purpose of trying to adjust the value of money for effects of inflation.

In fact, I would argue that using the GDP deflator by itself in order to adjust the value of money would achieve the right effect in this case – as it is a direct adjustment for the value of money that uses GDP-based calculations instead of CPI-based ones. (It also implicitly takes care of the "per capita" part, as it compares prices rather than volume of expenditures comprising GDP – hence no need for an extra adjustment.)

So my proposal is: whenever the distinction between consumer-relevant prices and large-scale capital expenditures is warranted, we should use CPI adjustment in the former case, and the GDP deflator adjustment in the latter.

(Pinging, , , , , , , who, as I can see from the discussions on this page, have either introduced this measure to the template, added recommendations to the template on which measure to use and when, or participated in discussions on related topics.) cherkash (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In returning to the issue and researching it in greater depth, I'm fully in agreement with you. In fact, I think we screwed up badly here, and I'm sorry for having played a role in the screw-up.  CPI (or RPI in the UK) and the GDP deflator are the only two standard measures for measuring what is known as "inflation".  I think we should remove the GDPPC datasets from this template, as they are not suitable for measuring infation.
 * We will need to add datasets for GDP deflators. It looks like they can be derived from tables output by https://www.measuringworth.com/usgdp/ and https://www.measuringworth.com/ukgdp/ .  Any volunteers?--Father Goose (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair I am not an economist so I don't have an instant response to this thread. My understanding is that they are useful more measuring different things but I need to read up on what the distinction is. Do we have any economists on here who are able to put it into layman's terms for us with a soild example? It may well be the case that the index is being used both correctly and incorrectly in our articles, so we probably can't just delete one series and replace it with another. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not an economist, so I might not completely understand it. Seems to me that some things don't scale the same way. Building interstate freeways doesn't scale the same as population, for example. But also government spending scales in ways that don't directly follow personal cost of living. But also, it isn't obvious that all capital (and government) expenses should scale the same way, so there might need to be more indices. But two is probably as much as we can keep track of. Gah4 (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As ever, it comes back to what you are trying to communicate or analyse (see http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/CHA0577-5132490407 for an economics article on the problem, elements of which are reproduced here). To take an example like the Empire State Building (built at a cost of $40,948,900 in 1931), when you compare that figure to 2016, what do you most want to know? You could compare it using a CPI measure (essentially converting $40m into the cost of 1931 household goods like beer and bread, then reconverting out into the cost of household goods like TVs and cars in 2016 - $645 million); you could compare it using a GDP measure (asking what % of the US economy $40m represented in 1931, and then asking what the same % of the US economy would be in 2016 if you spent it on a new project - $9,850 million); you could compare it with a GDP per capita measure (asking what % of the US economy $40m represented in 1931, allowing for the rather larger US population in 2016 than in 1931, and then doing the same calculation - $3,790 million); you could do it by comparing wages ($1,920 million or so, depending on whose wages you are interested in); etc. etc.


 * I agree with Father Goose that when measuring inflation, particularly in government, a GDP deflator (i.e. real rather than nominal) would often be used - it's very often the right tool for that problem, particularly if you're trying to calculate a rate of inflation, or trying to predict future costs. But there are plenty of exceptions in research terms - there's an interesting US government article on the problem from a medical perspective here with a summary on p.15. It lays out some of the questions you might be asking as a researcher and how you might answer them: Calculating the share of economy-wide expenditures devoted to health care over time? Use nominal costs and don't deflate. Comparing the social value of interventions across health and non-health sectors? Use a general price index. Comparing the amount of societal resources expended in different periods? Use a GDP price deflator, etc. The writers (unhelpfully for our perspective) conclude that "there is no single gold standard for adjusting health expenditures for inflation".


 * In short, there are a range of choices available to academics and writers depending on what they're trying to analyse... I think it gets really difficult on the Wiki, as it is a complex subject, and many editors don't even read the guidance on the front of this template, let alone delve into further details. And don't get me started on the medieval and early modern comparison problems... :) I'd support trying to provide several options for editors, fleshing out the guidance a bit more, including where to look for reliable source off-wiki, including on particular topics. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My main point (and the one fully understood it seems and shared by ) is the difference between nominal and real. Of course the nominals are important for certain research – in particular, when you want to derive the relevant deflators and price-index series. But when we need to calculate money-equivalence across time (which in effect, what "reals" do for us), we are not facing the choice of "real vs. nominal": the answer is clear here, we have use the reals; but rather we are facing the choice of which one of the "reals" we need to use (i.e. which of the adjustment methods is most relevant to the case in question). So nothing you wrote above,, contradicts this, but it seems you may have been addressing a different question when talking about a sometimes-importance of nominals. cherkash (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I defer to the expertise you guys are showing in here, that's way outside my wheelhouse. Mostly I just correct or add to articles about big construction projects, since bricks and steel and heavy machinery follow such different trajectories than bread and clothing and medicine. I assume NGDPPC is meaningful for something, or it wouldn't exist, but if the "US-CAP" and "UK-CAP" aliases I wanted were switched to a more useful measure, it wouldn't affect me at all. The various specific measures can be left in a separate table at the bottom, to people who **really** want to get into the weeds, like the medical issues Hchc2009 poses. SilverbackNet talk 21:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * NGDPPC is meaningful, but as one way of measuring growth, not of inflation. As such, it does not belong in a conversion template named "inflation".  The addition of it to this template was outright erroneous.  The GDP deflator was what what should have been added, and used, as our means of adjusting large-scale expenditures.  As to 's comments on what adjustment to use for health care costs, the paper he cites discusses the shortcomings of using PCE, CPI, or the GDP deflator for various scenarios – but they are all superior to using NGDPPC, which is not a measure of inflation at all, and is not mentioned in the paper he cites.
 * I've added a UK GDP deflator index to the template. I'll add the US one later.  I'll wait for a few more days of comments before changing the documentation to advise using the GDP deflator for non-consumer expenditures and deprecate the use of NGDPPC.--Father Goose (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * US GDP deflator added.--Father Goose (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the GDP deflators, – indeed an original mistake that is duly fixed now. cherkash (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove the NGDPPC indexes
So now for the real work. Can anyone cite a source suggesting that any form of GDP per capita measure is appropriate to use for inflation adjustments? I'm not talking about "measuring wealth", a concept without a fixed definition. I'm talking about just inflation, a concept generally understood to mean changes in prices in a national economy.

There are a few different standard ways to measure inflation (i.e., price indexes):
 * The Consumer Price Index in the US
 * The Retail Price Index in the UK
 * The GDP deflator (which we now have in the template for the US and UK)
 * The producer price index
 * The personal consumption expenditures price index
 * Chained CPI
 * The Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices

Of these, only the first three are typically used to "adjust for inflation" in generic contexts. The other indexes are used by economists to perform analyses, to measure subsectors of the economy, or by central banks to perform specialized adjustments. Nowhere in my research have I come across using any form of GDP per capita measure as an adjustment for inflation. (Investopedia suggests it's useful for measuring changing standards of living, which is not the same concept as inflation.)

Given that, I think it's time to say that using NGDPPC in our inflation-adjusting template is outright incorrect, and it should be removed. The GDP deflator should be emphasized as the index to use for non-consumer expenditures. To minimize disruption, the NGDPPC option can be marked as deprecated until such time as all in-article uses of it have been removed; then the index itself should be removed from our template.--Father Goose (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, "per capita" GDP is meaningless in the context we discuss here – i.e. measuring inflation. I think instead of presuming that editors actually wanted to use NGDPPC when adding the relevant snippets of template invocation to the Wiki pages, we should just assume that what was meant is a capital-expenditure inflation measure (as NGDPPC was indeed erroneously documented as a way to do this in the template doc). So we can safely replace NGDPPC with the new GDP deflator measure. cherkash (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've made edits to all the relevant templates I could think of (Template:Inflation, Template:Inflation-fn, and requested it for Template:Inflation-year).


 * In addition, Template:Inflation-fn now produces errors in the references generated. This error is phrased to suggest replacing the parameters by the correct ones in the template invocation. cherkash (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought that NGDPPC was intended to be for large government projects. I suppose it makes some sense to me. But I don't think I ever understood it in terms of wealthy people for non-government spending.  So, what did all the previous NGDPPC uses get converted into? Gah4 (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , see the section above: it was a mistake that has been fixed now. In brief: the NGDPPC series are not useful for anything in the context of inflation, and they will eventually be removed from inflation templates. cherkash (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell, GDP deflators should be used for large projects. GDP per capita is not a measure of "inflation" as such and should never have been added to this template.--Father Goose (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I used to believe that the per capita GDP made sense for something that a country only needed one of. When I see a large cost, I can consider my fraction of the cost. Say a national capitol building, which a country only needs one of. Since the US population is about 1/3 of a billion, it isn't so hard to convert a price to price per capita in my head. That might also work for state capitol buildings, as the number of states is growing slowly. For rent or housing costs, where it is normally one per person, there is no reason to scale with population.  For railway stations and shopping malls, the number needed should scale a little less than linear with population. I suspect that one could, other than WP:OR, figure out the scaling constants. Gah4 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It doesn't scale with population, though. It scales with economic growth (GDP).  It scales inversely with population, as "per capita" is the divisor.  Even if a nation is richer over time, that doesn't necessarily mean that a capitol building will be (or should be) more lavish, or even larger.  Or even that something like military expenses should be presumed to grow with GDP, per capita or not.  That's dependent on government revenues (taxes) but also on spending priorities (peace dividend, etc.).
 * It's a bit unfortunate that the Measuring Worth website is our most convenient source for inflation datasets. I trust the data they provide, but the site itself has as its focus a set of thought experiments that are readily misunderstood about how exactly growth, and in particular inflation, should be calculated.  The "different ways of measuring worth" are not wrong, but are best left as an academic exercise.  Anything we refer to as "inflation" on Wikipedia should be based on a standard price index only.--Father Goose (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the references to the US-/UK-NGDPPC templates from every mainspace article the were used in. Time to remove these series from the "inflation" templates altogether now: as already discussed, they are not relevant in the context of inflation. cherkash (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The templates are now officially nominated for deletion here. Please leave your message in support on that page. cherkash (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Replying to the first comment by, suggesting a replacement of "nominal GDP per capita" for "real GDP per capita": Actually an adjustment by "real GDP per capita" would only take into account the economic growth while ignoring any price change (inflation) during the given period of time, which would be futile and useless for any comparison. The so-called NGDPPC indexes using "nominal GDP per capita" are intended to demostrate the impact of both inflation and the enrichment of a society when comparing prices, that is, that an ammount of money that would appear as a fortune in 1900, like $5 dollars, by today's prices it will only be $123-147 dollars (whether using GDP deflator or the Consumer Price Index, respectively), which is not a lot of money, but if we use the 'nominal GDP per capita' it would be equivalent to $1,060 dollars nowadays, so this index was conceptualized to see how affordable was certain good in the past (people are typically much poorer in the past than in the present), making it not a good tool for prices comparison, but rather an expensiveness index.179.53.111.218 (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your input 179.53.111.218. This goes some way to answering my question at the top. Let me just recap (for my own benefit mainly), and you can correct me if I am wrong: CPI is as we all know the price index of a "basket of goods" while the GDP deflator is a "price index for the entire economy". Both are designed to track inflation. Nominal GDP is an index for the total value of the economy, while Real GDP is an index of economic growth (essentially the nominal GDP minus the inflation). Nominal GPD per capita is basically an index of average "wealth", whereas Real GDP per capita is basically a measure of "productivity". Would these be accurate descriptions in layman terms? I am still trying to get my head around the different distinctions. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be confusing "wealth" and "income", (e.g. when saying "Nominal GPD per capita is basically an index of average "wealth"": wealth is the sum total of accumulated resources, whereas GDP, or rather some portion of it which is not consumed and is saved/transformed instead, is more closely related to the change in wealth).
 * Same objection, to a degree, applies to you, : you somehow assume that GDP per capita translates into wealth (either directly, or by being its rate of growth). Whereas in reality, the personal income as a percentage of GDP – and taking it even further, the percentage of that income that is a disposable income (in one sense or another) – may vary drastically across time. So such comparisons using GDP itself, without taking care to derive equivalences that are more relevant to the subject of "feeling rich/poor" are ill-advised. cherkash (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I have yet to see anyone who defends the use of NGDPPC indexes actually provide a rationale for using them rooted in any kind of established economic practice.  Mostly it seems to boil down to defending their use because they produce numbers in line with expectations, but never actually explaining what the meaning is, numerically, of adjustments using NGDPPC.  Calling it "wealth" (or "worth") is no explanation at all.  It is a reasonable-sounding but ultimately arbitrary claim.


 * Worse still, making adjustments like this to match expectations hides the actual economic changes that have occurred across different eras. A person getting $5 in 1900 could buy approximately the same amount of goods for $123 now.  They could not buy $1,060 worth of goods.  Meanwhile, a modern person receiving $1,060 could buy $43 worth of 1900-era goods, not $5.  What this means is that the modern man is indeed 8 times richer (on average) than his great-great-grandfather.  (The underlying cause of this is because productivity has outstripped inflation.)  But this does not mean my great-great-grandfather received $1,060 worth of wealth.  I am wealthier than he was.  He really did receive a mere 123 bucks.  We cannot magically say he got $1,060 simply because that's about the amount I would get today for the same amount of work.  And it would be even less meaningful to say that if he sold something for $5, it would be worth $1,060 today.


 * NGDPPC reflects that wealth has grown over time, which is exactly why you cannot use it to map wealth from an earlier era onto the wealth of the modern era: doing so obscures the fact that wealth has grown over time, and it obscures the fact that people are richer in the modern era, in terms of the goods they can afford, than they were in past eras.--Father Goose (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The definition at Measuring Worth states: "The GDP per capita is an index of the economy's average output per person and is closely correlated with the average income. It can be useful in comparing different incomes over time." The source is Samuel H. Williamson, a professor of economics. Again, this is not my background so I don't dispute that GDP per capita is not useful for not inflating the "cost" of something, but it seems to have some valid applications in comparing value over time. You are most likely correct that the series does not belong under an inflation template, but I am not sure it should be just deleted. For instance, if I want to know who was "richer", John D. Rockefeller or Bill Gates, there are two ways to consider that question: i) what would their respective fortunes be worth today (which would use a GDF deflator); and ii) what is their comparative "richness" by the standards of their own eras? In this case GDP per capita seems like a useful metric because wealth has outstripped inflation so you need more than just a price index to draw a comparison. Betty Logan (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You can use NGDPPC to compare average incomes across different eras, but as I argued earlier, not to meaningfully adjust them. So... maybe you could use the NGDPPC dataset within a template to note that what someone made in 1900 is about an eighth what a modern person might make.  But using straight NGDPPC assumes income distribution is equal and also doesn't take into account cost of living changes.  So using it in pretty much any kind of numeric manner (or template) is iffy.  I think we're better off just sticking to inflation adjustments and letting people be occasionally surprised when historical figures don't seem all that big, because they weren't.


 * As for Gates vs. Rockefeller, we already do compare them on Wikipedia using the GDP deflator: see List of wealthiest historical figures and List of richest Americans in history. If one wanted to compare their fortunes relative to their eras, you could express them as a percentage of GDP, and we do that in John D. Rockefeller: "a fortune worth nearly 2% of the national economy".  (I have a problem with this approach, as it compares assets to production, two very different values, but it is a common approach nonetheless.)  None of this involves NGDPPC either way.


 * Let's retire this damned dataset already. A long-standing error is still an error.--Father Goose (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on the appropriate use of this template
There is an RfC at Talk:Manchester Martyrs regarding the use of this template in a case where there is a very wide range of possible current values of a sum of money. Any input would be appreciated. Scolaire (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Now resolved. The gist of the discussion was that, for a reward of £300 offered in 1867, the CPI – the value of a basket of goods – is not a good measure of its worth in 2016, and that, instead of the template, there ought to be an expression of its value in terms of average annual wages at the time (in this case, £300 ≈ seven years wages), still citing MeasuringWorth. I wonder if it would be worth adding a note to Template:Inflation/doc, drawing attention to the fact that there are cases where neither this template nor the US-GDP or UK-GDP indexes should be used? Scolaire (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: Category:Inflation calculation templates
Please add the following to this template to add Category:Inflation calculation templates to all transclusions in Template namespace:

.

Thank you. Daask (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Australian CPI
In an attempt to update Australia's CPI, I spent a half-hour going through the Australian Bureau of Statistics however I could only find the quarterly rate. I then went to this page from the web site Measuring Worth [], which gave me this; 2009	92.90 2010	95.80 2011	99.20 2012	100.40 2013	102.80 2014	105.90 2015	107.50 2016	108.60 2017	110.70 If there are no objections, I will use these figures to update Australia's inflation rate into this decade. I will, of course include M.W.s source for my refs. Keith 07:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith o (talk • contribs)

Equivalent
I think that use of the "equivalent" word is misleading, it should be something more approximate (about/around or similar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.25.210.104 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Feature request: range conversion
I encountered this sentence on Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant: "They sold 350,000 two-volume sets at prices from $3.50 to $12, depending on the binding." I used the solution of " roughly $ to $ in " which works well enough, but I'd be interested in seeing a dedicated feature analogous to the way  handles value ranges: " 30 - 40 cm " = "30 - 40 cm".-Ich (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Request: Have current year automatically specified
I'd like to have a flag so that the "current" year of the worth of the money is displayed. For example: "$100 ($160 adjusted for inflation as of 2017)" with 2017 being the year the template for USD was last updated WhisperToMe (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read second message box "Do not assume ..."? It's automatic by eq or manually by . --89.25.210.104 (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Euro
What about Euro version using Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices? Several datasets are available, Eurostat (Euro area, annual data, 2015=100, 1996-) or ECB (Euro area, annual frequency, 1997-) make the most sense for me.--Jklamo (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

US 2018 figure (provisional) available
I have updated the 2017 figure, but not added the new 2018 figure. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC).

update req'd
- $1,000m (1,000x1,000,000 to represent a billion) has been deprecated, and instead $1.000B is to be used. Can you please update the template? Thanks - wolf  03:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

UK - CPI / CPIH
Some discussion on Twitter about this template's use of RPI. Per the Office for National Statistics: "The course on which ONS has embarked has therefore been ... discouraging the use of RPI, while recognising the legacy needs ... RPI does not have the potential to become a good measure of inflation."

Has anyone been working towards making UK CPI or CPIH available with this template? TSP (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"start_year" Errors
When parameter start_year > 2017 is passed to "Inflation", an error is returned: "formatnum:: yields:

"$Error when using : |start_year=2,018 (parameter 3) is greater than the latest available year (2,017) in index "US". " Wapiti (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. That's what the documentation says. Look at the table that includes a column called "end_year maximum". – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the editor is referring to unholy messes like the one that can be seen at List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_States_and_Canada. This has happened across dozens of articles, simply because we have entered 2019. The exact same thing happened last year. Two things need to be done to fix the errors. First of all Template:Inflation/US/dataset needs to be updated with the 2018 index (found using the link given in the template documentation); I fixed this myself last year but the template has now been protected meaning I cannot do this. After this is done the year at Template:Inflation/year needs to be updated to 2018. It's about five minutes work and it would be much appreciated if somebody with the appropriate permissions could take of this. Betty Logan (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a bit messy; it looks like the template does not check well enough for invalid year inputs, which leads to messes like this. Somehow, the 2018 values appear to have been working until we got to 2019. I have done the updates to the templates in question, I believe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everything appears to be working now. The root of the problem is that there is a lag in the index being updated. The 2018 index probably won't be finalised until the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2019, but editors will keep adding data during that period. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was unclear. What I meant was that this works, even though the year is set to 2019: $0. According to the documentation, I shouldn't be able to put 2019 in the template, right? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From doc (start_year): Must be a year available in the chosen inflation index. As an exception to this, if the current year is specified and no end_year is specified, the template will output value unchanged, as it can be assumed an inflation of zero.. MarMi wiki (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that explanation. That makes sense, except for the part where big red error messages appear in articles every time January 1 comes around. I wonder if it would make more sense to insert a gentle hover-over note of some sort explaining that the figure may be out of date, along with a tracking category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

NaN error in "Format price" example
The first example in the "Format price" section is marked as good but produces a NaN result. I was unable to determine the cause. Once that's fixed, usage on this article is producing a NaN result and also appears to be violating your guidelines. DBN (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the first one, but the TMI one looks like: $ Gah4 (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * However: gives  so the NaN comes from  Gah4 (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can handle scientific notation in the form $2.032$, though? I thought it had to look like: 2.032E9. Anyway, I don't see any recent changes in the histories of either template. Was there a MediaWiki upgrade or something? (Btw, it seems like quite a few articles are probably broken; Macy's, Inc. has quite a few NaNs, which is what brought me here.) —BorgHunter  (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a friendly editor at the Village Pump figured out the cause. I'm going to ask the editor who merged to  to undo that until a solution can be found for this use case. —BorgHunter  (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 January 2019
Can someone add the data for 2017 and 2018? I'm getting 121.869 and 125.939, respectively, from the source in the template documentation. Also, according to the comment at the bottom of this template, Template:Inflation-fn and Template:Inflation-year will need to be updated too.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  23:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- / Alex /21  01:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Category
Please replace with the more specific TerraCyprus (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 18:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

JP Inflation
I was adding some Japanese prices in an article and noticed the end year maximum is 2013. I checked the reference and it has current data. Template:Inflation/JP/dataset also has data up to the current date too but I'm not 100% sure if all that's needed is an update to the max end year or if there's some more complicated workings I'm unaware of but I thought I'd mention it.  Cr im so nF ox  talk 08:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * After reading a bit more I think an update to Template:Inflation/year wasn't requested when the data set was updated. I've put a request in over at Template talk:Inflation/year  Cr im so nF ox  talk 08:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit protected - Template:Inflation/US/dataset‎ - Category
Request to move Inflation/US/dataset from Category:Data templates to more specific Category:United States data templates. TerraCyprus (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Capital E on equivalent?
Sometimes I want to use it at the beginning of a sentence. deisenbe (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

No trailing zeros when r=1?
expected result 1.0, actual result 1. When r=2, the result is 1.02 as expected. --Traal (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I posted a question at Module talk:Math. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a bug in Module:Math. I have replaced "round" with "precision_format", which appears to pad properly. Please ping me here if there are unexpected negative side effects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Self-reverted due to error in Template:Format price when it is used to wrap Inflation, possibly because  outputs a string. See Template talk:Format price. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

France
I just imported Template:Inflation/FR/dataset from fr:Modèle:Inflation/FR/table de données, if anyone wants to check my work. Trying to get historical inflation for the franc set up. (not watching, please )  czar  19:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Update to inflation dataset
Step 1

At Inflation/US/dataset please replace this:

With this:

This is just the annual update for the template. The new information comes from https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator/consumer-price-index-1800-

Step 2

Once the dataset has been updated the source also need to be updated. At Inflation/fn, in the  line please update the date to January 1, 2020. There are two instances of the date that need to be updated, representing the two date formats.

Step 3

The final step updates the most recent year. At Inflation/year you need to replace this line:

with this:

If you complete the updates successfully then the errors that can be found at aticles such as List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada should disappear. Best wishes. Betty Logan (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cabayi (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Similarly UK data for 2019 available from the URL given.

Step 1

At Inflation/UK/dataset please replace this:

needs changing to

Step 2

Once the dataset has been updated the source also need to be updated. At Inflation/fn, in the  line please update the date to February 2, 2020. There are two instances of the date that need to be updated, representing the two date formats.

Step 3

The final step updates the most recent year. At Inflation/year you need to replace this line:

with this:

--David Biddulph (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This should be a module to reduce expansion depth
See also: Template talk:US$.

This template uses over 20 of the 40 levels of "expansion depth" allowed by MediaWiki software described at meta:Help:Expansion depth. Pages that go over the limit wind up in Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded.

At least one template, US$, uses 33 of the 40 levels when it is used with the year parameter to calculate inflation, which doesn't leave much headroom for templates that call US$.

One good solution would be to turn this template into a module. Anyone up for the task? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  22:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

2019 data
There appears to be GDP deflator statistics for 2019 (used in US-GDP). Can someone more familiar with the template give an update? Thanks-- Therapyisgood (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Bug report. Template math is off by $100
Using this template for $25 and $50 respectively (and all other values being the same) yields:

$25

$50

Since 2 x $25 = $50, one would naturally assume that doubling the amount in the $25 template to $50 would produce a template output of $1,600 yet what we are seeing is instead $1,500, off by $100 or approximately 7%. --That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You have used the parameter  asking it to round to the nearest $100.  If you change the rounding parameter you will see a different precision, such as:
 * $25


 * $50
 * --David Biddulph (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do note that might be more precision than the data indicate. See above. Gah4 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do note that might be more precision than the data indicate. See above. Gah4 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Can the index know the currency symbol?
I used this template for British pounds and it surprised me that I have to put the currency symbol if I'm not using US dollars. Doesn't the  index know which currency (and therefore symbol) it's expecting as input, and therefore producing as output? I thought it might do automatic currency conversion so that I could specify  and have the resulting GBP converted to USD but it's just to change what's displayed.

Anyway, it would be nice if I could just do  and have it work as expected. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Default to prevent false precision?
Too often I find inflation abused in a way that reports numbers with false precision, like here: "... signed him to a contract worth $15,000 (USD, $0 today)." Even ignoring the fact that here $15,000 is probably rounded already, the implied precision (down to cents!) of the adjusted number is clearly absurd. Since this is a frequent occurrence, I suggest we change the default precision of this template accordingly. --bender235 (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Making the default r=-3 doesn't help much, except for baseball salaries. Recent discussion in convert shows that there is a better way to do this.  Convert does it based on significant digits, or relative precision. Setting r=-3 would be wrong for values of a few dollars, or a few billion dollars.  In addition (since there are many r= out there), there should be a sigfig= option, default without r=, for relative digits.  In the case of convert, it figures out the digits based on the input value.  That might or might not be right here. Gah4 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe computing significant figures on the input value isn't so easy, but one could still specify the number of significant figures for the output, and 2 might be about right for the majority of cases. Note that r= doesn't work well, as it changes with the order of magnitude of the value. Gah4 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe computing significant figures on the input value isn't so easy, but one could still specify the number of significant figures for the output, and 2 might be about right for the majority of cases. Note that r= doesn't work well, as it changes with the order of magnitude of the value. Gah4 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe computing significant figures on the input value isn't so easy, but one could still specify the number of significant figures for the output, and 2 might be about right for the majority of cases. Note that r= doesn't work well, as it changes with the order of magnitude of the value. Gah4 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Add to sources discussion
Hiya to add to the sources discussion above, I have been happily using this template, it's super useful (for example at List of heists in the United Kingdom) so thanks to all the creators for their hard work!! Recently, someone added a reference for the figures here which doesn't give the same info as the template (1,120,000 vs 1,526,611.85) and today there's this citation needed tag added. So I came here to ask if the template should be referenced. I suppose best practice says yes,and if that is the case should it then be added automatically? I'll be adding inflation-fn from now on, including those pages I've mentioned, cheers! Mujinga (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1684 is a long time ago, and a lot has changed since then. According to the accuracy link on that page, the goods that households buy have changed over the years. OK, for one, 1,526,611.85 has way too much precision, and even 1,120,000 probably still does. The difference is a factor of about 1.4, which is probably about as good as you can get without knowing the exact set of goods.  As I understand, the price of a BigMac is used by some as an index, (I suspect not for this one), but obviously that doesn't work for 1684. You just have to believe that a factor of 1.4 is close enough. Gah4 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes the accuracy is difficult for such a long time period. My main question was does this template need to be referenced. It seems best practice would say yes, so then maybe it's an idea to build in the referencing. Mujinga (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes the accuracy is difficult for such a long time period. My main question was does this template need to be referenced. It seems best practice would say yes, so then maybe it's an idea to build in the referencing. Mujinga (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Units addition
Would it be possible to allow units to be entered in the value, which would be copied to the output? Most of the numbers I deal with are of the form "1.2 billion", which has to be manually recreated using two templates. It would be much easier if I could |US|12. billion|1978, and I think that would help the readability of the source as well.. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the time, you can just put the units on the outside. There are sometimes that might fail (as in look ugly), but most often it should work. Can you give more of an example of what doesn't work?  Gah4 (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem. I am constantly using expressions like:
 * $125 million (equivalent to $ in )
 * This is the wrong approach. It is cumbersome, error prone (because the valued has to be entered twice, the second time with a lot of zeroes), and clutters the article. It would be much simpler if Maury's suggestion were allowed.
 * In the Sandbox I created a new format "eqm", to perform the task:
 * See (Template:Inflation/testcases). Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not just: $125 million (equivalent to $ million in )?
 * That is, $125 million (equivalent to $ million in )
 * (Note that the confuses things by adding on cents.) Gah4 (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not just: $650 million (equivalent to $ million in )?
 * You think we did not think of that? The comma goes missing. Whereas the sandbox produces:   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * $650 million (equivalent to $ million in )? Gah4 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not just: $650 million (equivalent to $ million in )?
 * You think we did not think of that? The comma goes missing. Whereas the sandbox produces:   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * $650 million (equivalent to $ million in )? Gah4 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * $650 million (equivalent to $ million in )? Gah4 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

France
The inflation data for France has been already added. The other templates need to be updated. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

"Calculation error" NaN on Maung Weik
I happened to look at the error category and see the article Maung Weik.

The full message is '' Error when using : NaN/calculation error please notify Template talk:Inflation. ''.

I see that the issue was introduced to that article with what is currently the most recent edit, Special:Diff/960240485, which reveals that that this template is actually being called from US$, so the above discussion Template talk:Inflation/Archive 2 might be relevant. A purge of that article changed nothing. That's all I have investigated. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I made the error go away by adding a value for round. I didn't read the documentation to find out why it worked, but it seems to have worked. The error message was not particularly helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

KRW

 * I added an example in the documentation. I cannot make the error go away. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a typo in the KRW template. I fixed it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Expansion depth
This template runs too deep. I see a commented out workaround in the source code. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there an article in which this is happening? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Expansion depth was exceeded in a couple of articles where I was attempting to perform nested calculations. I also now managed to reduce a bit the expansion depth of one of my templates that calls this one so it does not happen there. Otherwise, someone complained about the problem in the talk page of INRConvert. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Germany
Inflation-year is wrong and German wikipedia has data to 2019. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The data and logic were corrected in the German version. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Austria, Switzerland
German wikipedia has this. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Update?
The USD inflation year is still 2019; how do we update it? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the approximation of index value for the year 2020 (source: More Formatting Options: Select view of the data - uncheck Original Data Value, check 12-Month Percent Change; Select the time frame for your data - Select one time period - Annual Data; Graphs - uncheck):
 * 2020 = x / 768.3 = 1.012
 * 2020 = 1.012 * 768.3 = 777.5196 = ~777.5
 * Example diff (1.2% = 1.012) MarMi wiki (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , okay... I'm still not sure how to plug those numbers in to do the update. And from the table, it looks like a bunch of other currencies haven't been updated in several years. This template is used on 14,000 pages, so it seems like it ought to be more rigorously updated. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The US data sets get updated annually in late March or early April. In past years, I've updated them on tax day (April 15). The GDP series lags behind the CPI series by a whole year typically, so 2019 makes sense yet.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I found this source (MeasuringWorth), that theoretically is more precise - index has two places of precision (0.01), starts from 1774 and include 2020. MarMi wiki (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2021
Paste above 1800 data on Template:Inflation/US/dataset, sources in invisible comment. Zoozaz1 talk 14:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1634=66.5
 * 1636=118.75
 * 1637=102.25
 * 1638=53.75
 * 1639=88
 * 1640=76.25
 * 1641=76.25
 * 1642=77
 * 1643=111.25
 * 1644=80
 * 1645=70.5
 * 1646=43.5
 * 1647=33
 * 1648=58.25
 * 1649=85.5
 * 1650=45.25
 * 1651=60.5
 * 1652=47.75
 * 1653=62
 * 1654=62.25
 * 1655=5.25
 * 1656=58.75
 * 1657=48
 * 1658=30.75
 * 1659=34.5
 * 1660=39.75
 * 1661=33.5
 * 1662=36.25
 * 1663=36.25
 * 1664=36.25
 * 1665=31
 * 1666=31
 * 1667=33.5
 * 1668=34.5
 * 1669=32.25
 * 1670=31.5
 * 1671=32.25
 * 1672=32
 * 1673=30.5
 * 1674=32.75
 * 1675=30.5
 * 1676=30.75
 * 1677=30.75
 * 1678=30.25
 * 1679=30
 * 1680=34.5
 * 1681=35.25
 * 1682=28.75
 * 1683=28.75
 * 1684=28.75
 * 1685=31
 * 1686=29.25
 * 1687=28.75
 * 1688=26.5
 * 1689=27.25
 * 1690=27.75
 * 1691=28.5
 * 1692=27.75
 * 1693=25.75
 * 1694=27.5
 * 1695=25.25
 * 1696=30
 * 1697=29
 * 1698=27.75
 * 1699=30.25
 * 1700=43.9072
 * 1701=47.6225
 * 1702=45.9337
 * 1703=39.8543
 * 1704=36.476
 * 1705=35.1258
 * 1706=37.4900
 * 1707=40.1920
 * 1708=42.5562
 * 1709=39.1788
 * 1710=33.7748
 * 1711=35.4635
 * 1712=40.1920
 * 1713=43.2317
 * 1714=43.2317
 * 1715=29.7218
 * 1716=24.317
 * 1717=25.6688
 * 1718=29.7218
 * 1719=31.0728
 * 1720=25.6688
 * 1721=23.9801
 * 1722=25.3311
 * 1723=25.6688
 * 1724=27.0198
 * 1725=32.0860
 * 1726=31.0728
 * 1727=29.0463
 * 1728=27.3576
 * 1729=27.0198
 * 1730=27.0198
 * 1731=23.9801
 * 1732=22.6291
 * 1733=22.2913
 * 1734=22.6291
 * 1735=22.9668
 * 1736=21.953
 * 1737=22.2913
 * 1738=23.9801
 * 1739=21.2781
 * 1740=22.2913
 * 1741=30.7350
 * 1742=27.3576
 * 1743=23.9801
 * 1744=22.2913
 * 1745=21.6158
 * 1746=21.953
 * 1747=23.9801
 * 1748=27.6953
 * 1749=28.3708
 * 1750=28.3708
 * 1751=28.7086
 * 1752=29.3841
 * 1753=28.3708
 * 1754=27.3576
 * 1755=26.682
 * 1756=26.0066
 * 1757=27.3576
 * 1758=29.3841
 * 1759=33.4370
 * 1760=32.4238
 * 1761=30.3973
 * 1762=32.0860
 * 1763=32.0860
 * 1764=29.7218
 * 1765=30.0596
 * 1766=33.0993
 * 1767=32.0860
 * 1768=30.3973
 * 1769=31.4105
 * 1770=33.7748
 * 1771=32.4238
 * 1772=36.8145
 * 1773=34.1125
 * 1774=32.7615
 * 1775=31.0728
 * 1776=35.4635
 * 1777=43.2317
 * 1778=56.0662
 * 1779=49.6490
 * 1780=55.728
 * 1781=44.9205
 * 1782=49.3112
 * 1783=43.2317
 * 1784=41.5430
 * 1785=39.5165
 * 1786=38.5033
 * 1787=37.8278
 * 1788=36.1390
 * 1789=35.8013
 * 1790=37.1523
 * 1791=38.1655
 * 1792=38.841
 * 1793=40.1920
 * 1794=44.5827
 * 1795=51
 * 1796=53.7019
 * 1797=51.6754
 * 1798=49.9867
 * 1799=49.9867
 * I'm not seeing any invisible comment (I think they get stripped from the edit request due to a quirk in the way the system works). Could you please post the sources again? * Pppery * it has begun... 00:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , That's odd. The sources are this up to 1699 and this for the rest. Zoozaz1 talk  00:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Note that the documentation explicitly mentions the source for post-1800 data and should probably be updated to mention those two sources as well. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I'm planning to update that for all of my work on a lot of various inflation templates in one big edit request later on. Would you mind changing the start year to 1634? Zoozaz1 <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  00:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Finland, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Netherlands, Romania, Poland, Croatia, Denmark
It would be important to get the data. Many ships are built there. China and Russia too, but prices are missing. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , FYI, I've added data for all of those but Romania and Croatia (data during the communist period is hard to come by) and will be making it functional soon. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  02:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request 21 May 2021 - need US update to 2020
The US Inflation template data needs to be updated to 2020. This requires editing 3 pages. The source showing the 2020 data can be found here.

1. Template:Inflation/US/dataset requires a change from

to

2. Template:Inflation/year requires a change from

to

3. Template:Inflation/fn requires the current date be updated in two places on the line that starts with.

Thank you. <b style="color:indigo">Curious</b><b style="color:darkgreen">Eric</b> 01:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Updated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Although at Template:Inflation/fn on line   the date "May 1, 2021" should be "May 21, 2021" to match the DMY date.  Thanks. <b style="color:indigo">Curious</b><b style="color:darkgreen">Eric</b> 14:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Typo. Corrected. I would have updated this myself, but was waiting for the US-GDP to become available. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Documentation #Currency_conversion
Template:Inflation is wrong - right now the do converts (or redenominates) marks to euro (see year 2002 in DE template). MarMi wiki (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Documentation fmt=c
It doesn't have to be c, any value set (other than  of course), even empty, will add the comma(s), because of the condition at formatnum: MarMi wiki (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Inflation/US/dataset
Year 1635 is missing (or the starting year [1634] is incorrect). MarMi wiki (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's missing because the source used does not have data for that specific year. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  15:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So shouldn't it be set to 0, like in the Template:Inflation/UK/dataset?
 * And by the way, how it was determined that the indexes for the years 1634-1699 should be divided by 4? 1700-1800 index calculations comes (probably) from dividing the indexes in year 1800 (151/51 or 51/151), but I don't know how it was done for the range of 1634-1699 (no common years). MarMi wiki (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be set to 0, yes, when I was entering it I wasn't sure of the proper way to indicate that there was no data for the year. The 1634-1699 dataset includes a column that links it to the 1860 base. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  17:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So shouldn't, for example, the 1699 (= 121 in the source, with base 1860) be, instead of   (which is   for some reason)? MarMi wiki (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What I probably did was, likely confusing 1850 for 1860, but what I would have done is  . I'm not sure where you got that equation.  <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  21:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'm not sure why you calculate 1634-1699 in different way, instead of using the same method as for 1700-1799 - both indexes are the same indexes based on 1860. ("The annual average index numbers  for  1634-1700  as reported  in  column  6  of  Table A-2, Revised,  may simply be inserted  at the beginning  of column 6 of the original table.",, p. 330 [Table A-2, Revised is 2 pages later]).
 * The equation I used (I think I found it here or some other source) seems to produce nearly identical results as the one used for the 1700-1799 range (+/-1 after rounding to the same precision), so I'm assuming it's correct.
 * Using the method you used above for 1700:  (I'm assuming the 100 is from 1800 column 6 in McCusker, and 1860=27 is from minneapolisfed) equals   instead of   ("my" method:   [1700=130 and 1800=151 from McCusker, 1800=51 from minneapolisfed]). MarMi wiki (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason for the discrepancy there is that McCusker's numbers from 1800-1860 are different than the Fed's numbers in that time period, so the relationship between 1800 and the 1860 number is different for each source and therefore calculating the 1700 number would be different based off the 1800 numbers (which you used) instead of the 1860 numbers (which I used). In McCusker the, while for the fed it's  . Therefore the   should be greater at the 1800 number than the 1860 number. The equation I used in a different form is  (with 27 being the fed number and 100 McCusker's number); the difference between our methods is because   , 51/151 being the 1800 relationship and 27/100 being the 1860 relationship.
 * The question then becomes should we use the 1800 numbers or the 1860 numbers uniformly. I suppose we should use the 1800 numbers simply because that's what I used for the 1700-1799 index and because it reduces a sharp drop off of numbers, but I would think theoretically each method is equally valid.
 * The reason I originally calculated it differently was because the data I used did not have data for 1700, only 1699, and it seemed simplest just to compare the 1699 number with the 1860 base. Ultimately that was an arbitrary decision which I thought wouldn't matter as theoretically the CPI from 1800-1860 should be the same using either the Fed source or McCuscker. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  03:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand now, thank you for the explanations.
 * (Last paragraph) It (most likely) wouldn't mattered, if the 1699 had different base than 1700. But since both are part of the same index, it matters.
 * 1700 inflation check (1700/1699):
 * McCusker: 130/121 = ~1.0744 (~7.4%)
 * 1634 method (1860): (130 * (27/100)) = 35.1 /32.67 = ~1.0744 (~7.4%)
 * Mixed methods: 43.9072/32.67 = ~1.3444 (~34.4%)
 * 1700 method (1800): 43.9072/ (121 * (51/151) = ~40.8675) = ~1.0744 (~7.4%) MarMi wiki (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just submitted an edit request (using the McCusker source) with the corrected numbers. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  01:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I found other source for the years 1634-1699, by McCusker - with small differences starting from 1659 - but at least you don't need to register to get it. MarMi wiki (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine; the other source is more recent and it's still free. If you want to change it to that though it's up to you considering the mistake I made means it has to be changed anyway. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  21:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * According to reference section of Harris article, the 1996 McCusker is newer than the Harris - p. 504, the McCusker revision is "forthcoming". MarMi wiki (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 July 2021
Replace 1634 to 1699 data with:

|1634=89.84088
 * 1635=0
 * 1636=160.4301
 * 1637=138.1388
 * 1638=72.61575
 * 1639=118.8871
 * 1640=103.0130
 * 1641=69.23827
 * 1642=104.0262
 * 1643=150.2977
 * 1644=108.0792
 * 1645=95.24484
 * 1646=58.76809
 * 1647=44.58269
 * 1648=78.69521
 * 1649=115.5097
 * 1650=61.13233
 * 1651=81.73494
 * 1652=64.50980
 * 1653=83.76142
 * 1654=84.09917
 * 1655=81.39719
 * 1656=79.37070
 * 1657=64.84755
 * 1658=41.54296
 * 1659=46.94692
 * 1660=54.03963
 * 1661=45.25819
 * 1662=48.97341
 * 1663=48.97341
 * 1664=48.97341
 * 1665=42.21846
 * 1666=42.21846
 * 1667=45.25819
 * 1668=46.94692
 * 1669=43.56945
 * 1670=42.89395
 * 1671=43.56945
 * 1672=43.23170
 * 1673=41.20521
 * 1674=44.58269
 * 1675=41.20521
 * 1676=41.54296
 * 1677=41.54296
 * 1678=40.86747
 * 1679=40.52972
 * 1680=46.60918
 * 1681=47.62242
 * 1682=38.84098
 * 1683=38.84098
 * 1684=38.84098
 * 1685=42.21846
 * 1686=39.51648
 * 1687=39.17873
 * 1688=35.80125
 * 1689=37.15224
 * 1690=37.48999
 * 1691=38.50323
 * 1692=37.48999
 * 1693=35.12576
 * 1694=37.15224
 * 1695=34.45026
 * 1696=40.52972
 * 1697=39.17873
 * 1698=37.48999
 * 1699=40.86747

The numbers should be easier to copy and paste in source mode. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b> 01:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * source for your numbers? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 09:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  15:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Inflation/PL/dataset and related
Related - Template:Inflation/fn|PL:

Does the OECD data (starts at ~1989 in Inflation 1800-2000) is used in the dataset? Mitchell: I may be wrong, buy most likely the only one of his sources that has data for Poland is probably Europe 1750-1993.

Ref for convenience: 1914 to 2007: Coos Santing, 2007, Inflation 1800-2000, data from OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ''Economic Outlook. Historical Statistics and Mitchell, B. R. International Historical Statistics, Africa, Asia and Oceania 1750-1993 London : Macmillan ; New York : Stockton, 1998, International Historical Statistics, Europe 1750-1993 London :  Macmillan ; New York : Stockton, 1998, and International Historical Statistics, The Americas 1750-1993''  London : Macmillan ; New York : Stockton, 1998

Template:Inflation/PL/dataset:

Missing years - 1940-1944 and 1915-1919, would be good to set them to 0.

1848/9 - it seems that from 1949 there's another index used (or some other calculation is applied), can you (Zoozaz1, or someone else) explain to me how 1949 (8139.90909090909) was calculated? (I can't see formulas in the source, only color codes, if it has any meaning.)

Reference:

1948=7786

1949=8139.90909090909 MarMi wiki (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the data. The index comes from the Mitchell+OECD tab of the spreadsheet. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  19:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. MarMi wiki (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Inflation/CH
Is the Inflation/CH referencing the wrong dataset? I could well be missing something but it seems to using the Inflation/IN/dataset rather than the CH one. Jc5732 (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * . Luckily according to the statistics no article seemed to be using it. <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  14:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Calculated currency figures should be shown with limited precision Suggestion
I'm writing this after noticing the following output of the Inflation template, in the article Margaret Brown:

"[Brown] also received a $700 monthly allowance (equivalent to $20,163 in 2020) to continue her travels and social work."

The problem here is that $20,163 is being reported to 5 significant digits, far beyond the precision of the calculation.

Inflation calculations are always approximate, because many very varied price histories are combined to obtain a useful average. In this case the starting figure is $700 in 1909. That probably represents only 2 significant digits. Then the amount reported should be rounded to the nearest $100, for a result in this case of $20,200 in 2020.

My point, then, is that the Inflation template should only report 2 or possibly 3 digits of precision. Dratman (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is the r= parameter to indicate rounding. The value is the number if digits after the decimal point, default of 0. The units conversion convert does, more or less, figure out the significant figures of the input and propagate it. In your case, r=-3 might be about right. Gah4 (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gah4|Gah4! Dratman (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, that the inflation values are updated, so I wouldn't recommend rounding to less than 2 digits - especially when the number is small enough to easily loose precision after some time (ex. 10,000 can drop to 9,000).
 * I think that leaving 3 digits (after rounding) is an optimal solution. MarMi wiki (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that leaving 3 digits (after rounding) is an optimal solution. MarMi wiki (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 April 2022
2021 data for the US is now available and the dataset and related parts of the template may now be updated. 2600:6C64:507F:E6E1:C8CE:2644:2AE1:1025 (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Trouble with the New Zealand CPI index
Hello, I seem to be having some trouble using the NZ index. @Zoozaz1 and I have updated the data on Inflation/NZ/dataset, and the Inflation/fn and Inflation/year have been updated correctly (thanks @Paine Ellsworth), but it seems to generate "NaN" errors when I try and use it. I have some tests on my sandbox page, and I started a topic on Template talk:Inflation/NZ/dataset before realising I should bring it up here. Any help greatly appreciated! Cheers — Jon (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , I fixed it. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent, bravo! — Jon (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 December 2021
This is a request to update the UK dataset to 2020. The 2020 value is obtained with Initial Year 2010 and Ending Year 2020 at The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series).

1. In Template:Inflation/UK/dataset:

Before: After:
 * 2019
 * #default=  129.159
 * 2019   =   129.159
 * 2020
 * #default=  131.082

2. In Template:Inflation/year:
 * Before:
 * After:

3. In Template:Inflation/fn: Thank you very much. ネイ (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The accessdate in the line starting with  should be updated.
 * The URL should be updated from https://measuringworth.com/ukearncpi/ to https://measuringworth.com/datasets/ukearncpi/
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 16:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems this can be updated to 2021 please, copied formatting from above and retrived new value of from same source.
 * 1. In Template:Inflation/UK/dataset:


 * Before:


 * 2020
 * #default=  131.082
 * After:


 * 2020   =   131.082
 * 2021
 * #default=  136.404


 * 2. In Template:Inflation/year:
 * Before:
 * After:


 * 3. In Template:Inflation/fn:
 * The accessdate in the line starting with  should be updated.
 * Thanks, Indagate (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 01:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Indagate (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * my pleasure!  Paine  23:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Formatting
It seems that when using non-named parameters (numbered arguments) for the index and amount, the template is whitespace sensitive (it shouldn't be? Update: or at least, other templates seem to handle it; I got a bit lost reading this and this). It's could be underlying Lua code, but I can't tell from here. e.g.  works, but not   (note the spaces around the NZ and 100000). Respectively: "" and "". — Jon (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 21:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 02:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jonathanischoice The mediawiki software strips whitespace from named parameters (such as NZ), but not positional ones like in your example above. Nothing in this template uses Lua, but if it did stripping off the whitespace would be trivial. As it is, given the number of times that the index is used, stripping whitespace from each instance would be very inefficient. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * thanks for the reply; so is it best to just use the named parameters, index=NZ and amount=100000 everywhere and avoid positional parameters? (or at least, put up with hard-to-read squished template code) — Jon (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer the squishy code, but it's up to you. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK

Bot searching for articles that don't already use this template and updating?
Is there a bot that is searching for articles that don't use the inflation template but could/should be? Are there discussions on why we shouldn't do this? Can we at least create a bot which finds these articles and then recommends them to editors automatically? If its a matter of creating said bot I would gladly help. MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 August 2022
Can the test for start_year being greater than end_year be removed? Right now I'm getting

It would allow for use of the template in reverse calculations, like in the Minimum wage in Germany (values in 2015 euros). Tracerneo (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a feature request. The feature currently doesn't exist per Template:Inflation 69.203.136.65 (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Euros
This template is not usable for euros. Is there another that allows us to convert historical euros (e.g., 2013) to their present value (or whatever latest year for which there is data)? Thanks! — Spike  Toronto  09:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , there are two options that come to mind. You can add Euros to this template separately and use that, or you can look through the templates of EU countries here to see if any of those are converted to Euros at some point (which I suspect some are) and use that when dealing with Euros. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Creating dataset for euros
I am going to document my work process here, in case I am doing it wrong.

There is no conversion factor in this template for euros! So I will make one.

As far as I can tell, it would be pretty simple: create Template:Inflation/EU and then create Template:Inflation/EU/dataset to populate it.

My buddy who knows quite a lot about economics tells me that you can get CSV tables from FRED that document CPI inflation for euros here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.csv?bgcolor=%23e1e9f0&chart_type=line&drp=0&fo=open%20sans&graph_bgcolor=%23ffffff&height=450&mode=fred&recession_bars=off&txtcolor=%23444444&ts=12&tts=12&width=1168&nt=0&thu=0&trc=0&show_legend=yes&show_axis_titles=yes&show_tooltip=yes&id=CPHPTT01EZM659N&scale=left&cosd=1997-01-01&coed=2022-09-01&line_color=%234572a7&link_values=false&line_style=solid&mark_type=none&mw=3&lw=2&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Monthly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&fgsnd=2020-02-01&line_index=1&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2022-12-14&revision_date=2022-12-14&nd=1997-01-01

Am I missing out on something significant? jp×g 23:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Eurostat may be more appropriate and "official" source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/hicp/data/database
 * Euro area inflation will be different from European Union as a whole, as not all countries use Euro, so please keep it in mind and document appropriately.
 * Maybe even adding separate inflation data for these datasets would be appropriate. Eurostat codes them as EU, EA, and EEA Tracerneo (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

What actually happens when I do this?
Let's say we have 50,000 francs in the year 1830 -- I want to know what is going on when I type the following.
 * ( in )

Francs were converted to Euros at 1 euro for 6.55957 FRF on 31 December 1998 -- is it giving Euros in 2022, or francs in 1998? Or something else? jp×g 10:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * , reading the data source (with the title of "Conversion coefficient of the euro or franc of one year, into euro or franc of another year"), I suspect it is currency agnostic; in others words, entering pre-conversion francs and converting that to 2022 would give you the value in francs adjusted for inflation; entering post-conversion euros and converting that to 2022 would give euros adjusted for French (not European) inflation. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Small, old calculation
I'm trying to show an equivalent amount for a pre-decimal penny from 1830, and showing the equation gives "", which isn't much of a help! Has anyone got a way to show this - even if it ends up showing a fraction of a modern amount? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to set the rounding to appropriate precision for each stage of the claculation, otherwise the numbers round to 0 and hence your problem:
 * Betty Logan (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Betty, you're an absolute star! Thank you! - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Betty, you're an absolute star! Thank you! - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Dead link
Probably because of housecleaning at the Minneapolis Federal Reserve bank web site, the US template includes a dead link. The link that works is here, but I don't know how to fix templates. If you know how to fix this one, please do. Finetooth (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I fixed it - here is a Test with the reference below. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Final period
I'd like propose a change to this template to either remove the final period from the footnote produced or to at least make it optional by adding a "postscript" parameter as in citation. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-footnoted footnotes
Is there an equivalent of this without the ref tags? If I'm putting the inflation info itself in a footnote, I don't want another footnote linked to from within that, I just want the whole lot inline. Does that make sense? Pseudomonas(talk) 09:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This would really be a helpful feature. Perhaps a "noref" parameter could be added to suppress the generation of the ref tags, or even better, the template could be split, with Inflation-fn generating the ref tags, and calling upon Inflation-src to generate the contents. That way, we could call Inflation-src from within a footnote. —mjb (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dates
The current template produces a footnote of "Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved December 7, 2010" Is there any way of producing one that could produce one as "Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved 7 December 2010"? (Or is there a version that does that already?) I've had comments from reviewers of articles who want to see all the dates in the same format if possible. Cheers. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This feature has been available (for US only) since . It's not documented, but you just need to add the parameter yes --<span style="background: rgb(255, 238, 238); color: rgb(211, 0, 0); text-decoration: inherit;">Red rose64 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fantastic - works like a charm! Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now documented. --<span style="background: rgb(255, 238, 238); color: rgb(211, 0, 0); text-decoration: inherit;">Red rose64 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No-country parameter handling broken
The docs say "When no country parameter is provided, or when an invalid country is provided, the generated footnote is a generic one:" but the examples, and , do not seem to be generating anything at all. —mjb (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅, with . --<span style="background: rgb(255, 238, 238); color: rgb(211, 0, 0); text-decoration: inherit;">Red rose64 (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Title
At it currently stands that footnote generated by this template reads "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–2008." I note, however, that the page title reads "CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (ESTIMATE) 1800-" Could the template be adjusted to show the correct title, i.e. to remove the 2008 date? Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Titles do not take all caps from their sources
 * 2) This would be a miscitation, at the time this data was gathered, the source was 1800-2008, which is why there's a date indicating when the data was extracted. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about the caps, I'm talking about putting in the CORRECT page title: "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–" What is currently there is a mis-citation. I'm proposing the correct one it used instead - and one that reflects the fact that it's gone 2008 and the templaet still works in the intervening three years. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Automatic Updating Indication
Some of the references specify that the values are generated automatically and some don't. I think it's important to include that the values are generated automatically and what the source/methodology is. How can I have it automatically include that info?Emschorsch (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Retrieved by" dates
I've noticed that the "Retrieved by" dates are not showing in footnotes, although I seem to remember that is always uaws to. Was there a decision to stop showing the date, or is this an error? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 April 2017
I'd like to add |UK-CAP after |UKNGDPPC and |US-CAP after |US-NGDPPC, as aliases. These are much easier for editors to remember, and the template redirects are already set up for them. Documentation and preferred use can be worked out after they're proven to work. SilverbackNet talk 03:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 16:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is CAP a commonly used abbreviation for this index? If not, would something like US-PC/UK-PC (Per Capita) be a better choice? --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00f;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-0.3em;line-height:1;font-size:50%;text-align:center;">'''TALK
 * Yes check.svg Done I've added the requested parameters. these are indexes for inflating capital expenditures, see the box at the top of the documentation for Inflation. – Train2104 (t • c) 05:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2017
I request that the UK inflation index be updated to the 2016 value. According to The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to 2016 (New Series), starting with £100 in the year 2010, that value will be £117.665 in 2016. So I have 3 requests.
 * Update Template:Inflation/UK/dataset. My complete and specific description of the request is here.
 * Update Template:Inflation-fn Change the year data was available for the UK, from 2016 to 2017.
 * Update the Template:Inflation-year UK value from 2015 to 2016.
 * Note: The UKNGDPPC template (for governments and billionaires) has, of course, already been updated.

Thank you for your time. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 14:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is measuringworth.com a reliable source for this information? Is there not a government source for inflation figures? Is there consensus of using RPI vs CPI? --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00f;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center;">TALK
 * we currently use Measuring Worth for the US-NGDPPC (nominal GDP per capita) figures now. As for RPI vs. CPI in the UK, see this explanation from the website.
 * All updated now.  Imzadi 1979  →  14:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I know the reference was chosen in 2008 when the page was created. Thank you all. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Referenced calculator no longer available
The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Community Development Project link referenced by the template for U.S. dollar CPI calulations is no longer available and gives a 404 page. Something new is needed, since an archived link is pointless for a page that performs a calculation. — <span style="color: rgb(83, 27, 255); font-weight: 500; text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px dimgray;">Marcus (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The MeasuringWorth website that is the source of the US-NGDPPC series also has a CPI series that can be substituted. As a bonus, their CPI series runs back to 1774 instead of 1800. I'm about to step out for dinner, but when I return, I can edit everything to switch over sources. <span style="background: rgb(0, 107, 84); padding: 2px;"> Imzadi 1979  →   21:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Or, alternately, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/community/financial-and-economic-education/cpi-calculator-information/consumer-price-index-1800 appears to be the new URL for the current source. <span style="background: rgb(0, 107, 84); padding: 2px;"> Imzadi 1979  →   21:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 January 2018
Please can somebody update the index for the US entry to 2017?

i.e. Replace  with

We are getting a multitude of errors at articles such as List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_Canada_and_the_United_States now that the year has progressed to 2018. I have updated the dataset but currently the 2017 entry is out of bounds until we update the year here. Best regards. Betty Logan (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Template:Inflation/US/dataset & Template:Inflation-fn checked. Cabayi (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 January 2018
Please update the Inflation year of India to 2017. TIA! :) Anirudh Emani (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the update of the data set to include 2017 numbers because the source for the data set has not been updated for 2017 yet. Once that happens, we can update everything for 2017.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 January 2018
Please make US-CAP and UK-CAP aliases for US-GDP and UK-GDP respectively. The previous series (US-/UK-NGDPPC) were introduced in error – and this has been fixed now (see Template talk:Inflation). cherkash (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅  Imzadi 1979  →   11:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 January 2018
Time to remove the UK-NGDPPC and US-NGDPPC lines altogether now (all the references to them in other articles are fixed now: See Template talk:Inflation for details). , will you do the honors? cherkash (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅  Imzadi 1979  →   22:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 January 2018
Can an administrator please update inflation data year for India (IN) to 2017. As per this reference. I have already updated dataset on Template:Inflation/IN/dataset, and thereby, for Template: INRConvert. Also, I have updated the reference on Template:Inflation-fn. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 13:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Support for more use scenarios
This template really needs support for more use scenarios, such as shortened footnotes and nested footnotes. The current use case pretty much only works for the scenario where you have the full citation inline in the article text.

To do this there are two variables that need to be controllable: whether the output is wrapped in -tags, and whether and what ref parameter is passed to the underlying citation template. There also needs to be consistency on whether the output is a citation or an explanatory note. Compare:



(there is also some weird extra HTML wrapped around the US output for some reason).

I would propose something along the lines of moving most of the logic and citation data into a Lua module (handling logic in template syntax is… challenging), with the citation data in configuration tables, and turning the template into a thin wrapper. The output could then vary based on (short author—date ref, linked to same ID generated by full),  (full cite without   tags, generates same ID as shortened),  (default, what it does today), and maybe  (if that is still necessary).

The cost and downsides would be having to write the Lua module in the first place, having to maintain the citation data there (instead of the template), and maintaining a more complex system.

Thoughts? Opinions? --Xover (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No? No interest in this then? Not even to say the proposal appears wrong or pointless (if that's the case)? --Xover (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 April 2018
Can add to inflation data year for South Korea (KRW) to 2017? -- The Snail is Reading a Book  (Discuss with User)  11:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 April 2018
's KRW references > -- The Snail is Reading a Book  (Discuss with User)  11:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * KRW(South Korea)'s Official Inflation data, it's under index.go.kr(running Statistics Korea, but it's not support English page. this title is translated). Original Ref is this name - korean wikipedia - | KR =  -- The Snail is Reading a Book   (Discuss with User)  00:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Using KR in Korean Wikipedia, but english is prevention of confusing, change KR > KRW. -- The Snail is Reading a Book  (Discuss with User)  00:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * also you don't distrust Statistics Korea, why exist other gov't references source? Statistics Korea is part of South Korea Gov't, and Statistics Korea is announced annual/part inflation rate for mass media. it's core souce for this announced. -- The Snail is Reading a Book  (Discuss with User)  00:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * and now krw’s reference is broken(see the main template), it’s supplies for references The Snail is Reading a Book   (Discuss with User)  00:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, after discussion with the user off-wiki, this was a request to add KRW data, so I made an edit with quick copyedit. Hope this helps! &mdash; regards, <span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi 10:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Canada's inflation
Please update Canada's inflation to 2017. The new value of 130.4 from Statscan is already inputted. Thank you. Keith 11:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith o (talk • contribs)

"Must be done every time" admonishments
The docs for several of the template parameters claim This must been done each time the template is called in an article, or there will be an error message in the reference list. Aside from the grammatical issues ("been" instead of "be", at a minimum), that claim doesn't appear to be accurate. Observe: {{Block indent|1=

Last author ampersands
To promote consistency with an article that uses last-author-amp to join the last author in a list with an ampersand, footnotes that list multiple authors and the cite web base template can also use this parameter. This must been done each time the template is called in an article, or there will be an error message in the reference list. }}

If I'm interpreting it correctly, the quoted admonishment is implying that the second call above would cause an error, by not repeating the yes parameter. But in reality, it doesn't seem to cause any problem at all. Should we just remove the "This must been done each time the template is called in an article, or there will be an error message in the reference list." admonishment from the various documentation sections where ti appears? Or is it still accurate for some parameters other than last-author-amp? -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you're not seeing the error messages, but this template generates code like  which will generate an error message if two ref tags with the same name have different content (date format, last auth amp, etc.). See H:CERDK. If you use a web inspector type tool you'll see that your example above contains the following:
 * tag; name "inflation-USGDP" defined multiple times with different content (see the <a href="/wiki/Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_references_duplicate_key" title="Help:Cite errors/Cite error references duplicate key">help page</a>).
 * You can also see that the page is now a member of Category:Talk pages with reference errors. --Xover (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, thanks! I do see that now. Well, I don't see it, which it seems is due to this style in the enwiki Vector skin:
 * span.brokenref { display: none }
 * Seems a bit strange. Especially as other reference errors are still displayed. Regardless, as you say the conflicting reference content does indeed cause errors, so I'll leave the admonishment in place and simply tweak the grammar. Thanks! -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 September 2018
Please update  inflation year to   as per update on Template:Inflation/ZAR/dataset. When done, please update year in Template:Inflation/year/doc and Template:Inflation/doc to correlate. Thanks, Waddie96 (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Format confusion with Template: Inflation
This page shows the format as Inflation/year where the format shown on Template: Inflation shows it to be Inflation-year in its examples. I just tried this in the Great Chicago Fire article, and it works with Inflation-year, not using the slash character /. Is the separator character irrelevant? I did not try it with the / as I am spending my time on millions to billions reading correctly. Could both articles match each other, or explain why each page shows a different character? --Prairieplant (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * the template used to be called inflation-year until recently when it was moved to inflation/year. The former name redirects to the latter. Ditto the move from inflation-fn to inflation/fn.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You are saying this difference is on purpose. I used Inflation-year in Great Chicago Fire and it worked. This will be a gradual transition the the / format? That is what former name redirects to the latter means, I guess. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 October 2018
Please update the inflation year for Canada to 2017. The dataset and the references were updated several months ago. Alaney2k (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Alaney2k (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

duplicate reference definitions
This template appears to create duplicate reference definitions. For example, the "filming" section of Dr. No (film) invokes this template twice, and ends up with duplicate definitions of a reference named "inflation-UK". How can these errors be corrected? It seems like the template should create identical reference text for each invocation, but it apparently does not do so. How can multiple invocations of the template safely be used on the same page, without causing duplicate reference errors? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Angel Stadium and Apollo Program demonstrate the same problem with references named "inflation-USGDP". -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Lots of articles are affected; this seems to be a global issue. Any ideas about how to diagnose the issue? I don't see recent changes to this template which appear to be likely causes. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Mike, I fixed the Dr. No (film) so you can see what I did. The ref names of interest are embedded within the cite web templates, in this case name="inflation-UK" so I just put that between ref tags, and used that in one instance of the template. Regards CV9933 (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, CV! I'll go look at your fix. I think something is really wrong -- there are now (about) 400 more topics in Category:Pages with duplicate reference names compared to yesterday. Maybe there are multiple issues contributing to that growth. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what has changed to cause these errors. I'm not keen on the fix at Dr. No (film), though, because that article now "knows" the name of the reference that is generated by the template. Previously, identical calls to Inflation/fn were automatically merged by the software, without the articles having to know anything about how the template was coded. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you have a look at User:John of Reading/X3 please? Two identical template calls try to generate two identical named references, but there's a "brokenref" message hidden in the HTML for the page. Could this be a side-effect of introducing template styles? -- John of Reading (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t think anything is broken as such - it is just a consequence of defining a CS1 ref name and then trying to use it twice or more in the same article. The fix I implemented is pretty much the same as what we have been doing for the last three years. If we were to remove the name= parameter from the cite web template, I suspect we wouldn’t have a duplicate ref problem in the article, but we would see the same ref appear in the ref list twice. Because of the transclusion to many articles I wouldn't fancy playing with the template to find out. CV9933 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your fix works, but I don't think it's the right thing to do. Lots of articles invoke the inflation-fn template multiple times. It's clear those articles were encoded expecting that the template would do the right thing: generate a reference the first time, and re-use that same reference on any subsequent invocations. This World Cup article uses six invocations of the template. It worked fine for a couple years, but over the last couple of days something was changed that makes the article produce duplicate ref-def errors for all but the first invocation of the inflation-fn template. I don't think we can apply your explicit ref-tag fix to every invocation in every article that uses it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, something is broken. I assert that it is MediaWiki's handling of TemplateStyles. There are no restrictions on what may be made part of a reference. Any template that uses TemplateStyles may be used within a reference so the problem is not confined to the cs1|2 templates; cs1|2, being the most common templates used in references, just happen to reveal the problem. MediaWiki handles template styles by insertion of a stripmarker where the template includes the ; for cs1|2 at the tale end of the rendering. After cs1|2 has done its thing and after MediaWiki has discovered and flagged the duplicate-ref-different-text errors, then, MediaWiki replaces the stripmarker with the value of the stripmarker (I don't know exactly what that is; css file name? content of the css file?).

Stripmarkers are unique, even when they point to the same thing, because templates are processed in isolation from each other so that processing knows nothing about what has come before. Here are the code-view renderings of two identical templates; stripmarkers are at the tail ends:

I can do nothing to fix this so you-all should report it at phabricator. —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

If you consider
 * Thanks, . I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what recently changed. If it's WikiMedia itself, I don't understand why so few references are affected. Because Wiki syntax is complicated and cofusing (especially when we consider citation templates, and all the rules for using them, and ...) users really struggle to get pages to work well -- and be correctly referenced. There are lots of pages which have duplicate references explicitly in text, but they're no problem. And only a few (three?) template-generated references are causing problems, too.
 * Meanwhile, I'll go over to Phabricator and try to figure out how to open an issue. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've opened T205803 over in Phabricator. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On 29 September 2018 I updated the cs1|2 module suite. Before that time cs1|2 had not been using TemplateStyles.  Now that cs1|2 is using TemplateStyles this MediaWiki flaw is revealed.  I don't think that it is caused by <ref ></ref> tags; identical named references references in article space don't show an error.  This template though uses the    magic word.  Apparently, handling of that is different from how the <ref ></ref> tag is handled.
 * error: same name, different coding:
 * and
 * error: same name, same coding :
 * and
 * ok: same name, same coding (<ref ></ref>):
 * and
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * and
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * and
 * this is of interest because the above ensemble would have resulted in a ref error that needed fixing in the past.
 * To add to my confusion, if "test4" is of a different cite type then it will display an error.
 * and

But not in my sandbox, I suppose that is because I'm working in userspace. CV9933 (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In your "past" example, the reference definitions have subtle differences in their spacing. In the "display an error" example, one of the three definitions of "ArunNarendra2012" has a different "pages" parameter to the others.
 * Yes, the error messages don't show in userspace, though I think there's a CSS option to display them. My User:John of Reading/X3 is currently in Category:User pages with reference errors, though, and when I ask my browser to display the HTML of the page, I can see the error message. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What?
 * Your test3 and test 4 examples are identical to themselves and will not show errors because they are wrapped in <ref ></ref> tags. In your  example the two   references clearly have different page numbers so were different:
 * Your edit compromised source integrity. The correct 'fix' for this situation is to rename one of these references and then make sure that the other   are all properly named.  If you cannot determine which ref name goes where, do not attempt a fix, post a note on the article talk page and ping the editor who inserted the references.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Trappist thanks for the advice, I will bear that in mind the next time I decide to wade through 35,000 duplicate reference errors:(. CV9933 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edit compromised source integrity. The correct 'fix' for this situation is to rename one of these references and then make sure that the other   are all properly named.  If you cannot determine which ref name goes where, do not attempt a fix, post a note on the article talk page and ping the editor who inserted the references.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Trappist thanks for the advice, I will bear that in mind the next time I decide to wade through 35,000 duplicate reference errors:(. CV9933 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Trappist thanks for the advice, I will bear that in mind the next time I decide to wade through 35,000 duplicate reference errors:(. CV9933 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sick of this error The template is broken, phabricator is not an answer. Why hasn't this change been reverted? How do I fix it? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  06:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Help talk:Citation Style 1 is the correct forum to request a revert of the en.WP module change that caused this MediaWiki bug to display errors on pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2018
Please replace the following:


 * ERR     = Error: no index specified when using Inflation-year.
 * default = Error: undefined index "" when using Inflation-year.

with this:


 * ERR     = Error: no index specified when using Inflation/year.
 * default = Error: undefined index "" when using Inflation/year.

This is simply to update the name of the template to match its current name. Jdaloner (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Dead link for German cost of living data
The original link for German cost of living data has gone dead due to a website redesign. I've temporarily replaced it with a link to the archived version just to avoid dead link showing up on a bazillion articles. A permanent fix would be to replace the link with the new location for that data, but in the mean time they've rebased the calculations to 2010 (used to be 2000) so more updates than the link are needed in that case. And that's more significant changes than I'm comfortable making just now. --Xover (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Possible better source.
 * BTW, your direct pdf link isn't direct anymore :) --89.25.210.104 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent UK update
Thanks for the edits! However, the UK-GDP entry which you changed here seems to be a separate dataset that's still on 2016.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  15:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , ✅ Cheers. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  16:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 March 2019
Please update the inflation year for Canada to 2018. The dataset and the references have been updated. Alaney2k (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 March 2019
Please update the inflation year for India to 2018. The dataset has been updated. EcoWizard (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 April 2019
Can someone please update the US-GDP year to 2018? I updated the dataset and the footnote. Thanks,  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  23:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅  Imzadi 1979  →   23:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2019
Please update latest year for JP per the dataset update that was done in March. Thanks.  Cr im so nF ox  talk 08:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * to verify you would like it changed to:


 * JP      = 2019
 * correct? — xaosflux  Talk 15:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess so, the data appears to have been added but possibly a request to update the maximum year wasn't done. I was just sort of passing and noticed.  Cr im so nF ox  talk 16:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 16:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 January 2020
Please update the end year values for AU, AU-road, PH, and ZAR to 2018, 2018, 2019, and 2018 respectively (because of these dataset updates plus this made by me). It should look like these: |AU     = 2018 |AU-road = 2018 |PH     = 2019 |ZAR    = 2018

Regards,  Eye snore  20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 March 2020
Please update the inflation year for India to 2019. The dataset has been updated. EcoWizard (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅  Imzadi 1979  →   02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 June 2020
Change latest inflation end year for Pakistan to 2018; from  to. I have updated the relevant dataset. Idell (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 June 2020
Please add the follow to the template:  | IR       = 1398  Benyamin (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, you had done the latest edit request of this template. Please do this request too. Thanks. Benyamin (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Where is this even going to be used? Primefac (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. List of highest-grossing Iranian films. Benyamin (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So why 1398? I know there are some places that go on different calendars, but shouldn't the enwiki template go off the "English" calendar? Primefac (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Gregorian calendar? I'm worry for WP:OR. As I noted in Template:Inflation/doc/cpi-ir, Iran's CPI is calculated only in Solar Hijri calendar. The 1398 SH begun from March 2019 and ended at March 2020. Benyamin (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Very interesting, I didn't know about Iran's calendar system. Thank you. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you too :)
 * If you interested for the calendar, take a look to this encyclopaedia entry for more information. Benyamin (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 November 2020
Please update the reference for Canada (CA)

From:


 * CA =

to


 * CA =

Thanks in advance Alaney2k (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 January 2021
I have added the dataset for Singapore inflation, to be used for Singapore related articles. Please add the following line to the template:

| SG      = 2020

Thanks. – robertsky (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 January 2020
Please include the following reference for the Singapore dataset which I have added for the Inflation template to be used for Singapore related articles:


 * SG =

List of pages created (based largely on BD pages):
 * Template:Inflation/SG
 * Template:Inflation/SG/dataset
 * Template:Inflation/SG/startyear
 * Template:Inflation/doc/cpi-sg

Related request: Template talk:Inflation/year.

Let me know if I need to update anything. Thanks in advance. – robertsky (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 10:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * here you go:  – robertsky (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 February 2021 -- a wikilink to MeasuringWorth is possible
I've created an article about the MeasuringWorth website, and we could link to it in footnotes that use that site. A replacement of "work = MeasuringWorth" by "work = MeasuringWorth" in this template might do the trick. Since people won't click through to it very often, perhaps it's not worth the trouble. Sometimes pages have so much wikicode that they exhaust the Wikipedia back end. I trust your decision on this, templateers. -- econterms (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * not sure the article would survive an AfD, or I'd link it. I don't think the amount of Wikicode for a single wikilink is a large consideration, here. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 16:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I agree this is potentially a useful link, if the article expands beyond material already found on the website itself. See also my note about third-party sources on the article's talk page. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 April 2021
I have updated the dataset for Canada inflation to 2020. Please update the CA param to 2020:


 * CA = 2020

Thanks in advance,

Alaney2k (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 20:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 April 2021
Please update the reference for Canada (CA)

From:


 * CA =

to: (the urls are the same, but the accessdate is changed, and there is not a date provided by Stats Can on the table, so I have removed it)


 * CA =

I have tested this in the sandbox. Thanks in advance. Alaney2k (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 20:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 May 2021
Add

| CH =

above CA listing <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  00:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 14:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)