Jump to content

Talk:Dutch guilder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guilder vs Gulden

[edit]

I have never heard this currency called "Gulden" in English. In everyday English use as well as in my ten years working in the foreign exchange markets, it has always been called the "Guilder". Its official ISO4217 name was "Netherlands Guilder". Likewise, ANG and AWG (and previously SRG) are called "Guilder" by ISO. For further proof, just compare the number of results of these two Google searches:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22netherlands+guilder%22 (114,000 hits)
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22netherlands+gulden%22 (1,700 hits)

Unless good reasons are presented why we should keep this Dutch spelling in an English language article, I propose to change the name of this article to "Netherlands Guilder". Nfh 08:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (and I'm Dutch, if you mind). —Ruud 23:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Numismatics WikiProject is working on figuring out what currency pages should be called. If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please do. Until it's resolved there, please do not move this page. Thanks. Ingrid 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discussion going on on that page, but if we have articles about Finnish mark (not markka) and so on we ought to use the ordinary name for the guilder too. Guilder is pronounced ['gilder]; gulden is ['xulden] and hardly anyone who speaks English natively knows this. Oxford calls gulden a variant of guilder. So I've been bold and will follow through with cleanup. Evertype 20:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it is Finnish mark that has to be changed to Finnish markka. Have you heard of "1000 Japanese yens"? If not, what's the logic behind it? --Chochopk 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The English word is "mark". What's the plural supposed to be if we must use "markka" in English? "Markkas"? That's wrong. "Markat" is the nominative plural and "markkaa" the partitive plural used after numbers. The plural of "yen" seems to be irrelevant here. Evertype 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, it has been the consensus of the numismatic project that we use the local form of the unit, both in terms of spelling and grammar. It happens that some people take a long wiki break and the effort of implementing the naming convention has been slow. --Chochopk 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guilder is the common English name for this currency and has been for centuries. Gylder and gilder are attested to 1547 in the OED, the only thing earlier is guldrens which is interesting (cf child, childer, and children) and which is attested to 1481. I think moving it to guilder was the right thing to do, cf ISO 4217 and Google and discussion above. Evertype 08:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then every currency (and not limited to) listed on guilder must be changed. So is the text. I'm sure you're underway. --Chochopk 08:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did all the redirects, and changed the text of the article, but as you can see Dove has reverted. This is a bit of a problem. Evertype 15:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonsense. The name of this currency was gulden, not guilder. We do not use English names but the local name. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style for details. Dove1950 11:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Nonsense"? When the name of the currency has been "guilder" in English for five hundred years? When Google gives 114,000 hits for the English name and 1,700 for the Dutch one? It seems that a style guide should be a guide, not something to override people's intelligence. And unless you avoid transliteration from other scripts in to Latin, then you are not using local names for a great many scripts. I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics/Style#Guilder_vs_gulden. Evertype 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dove1950, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style, we should use the ISO 4217 name if it is available. The official ISO 4217 name of this currency was "Netherlands Guilder" right up until the currency ceased to exist in 2002. If we follow the style guide which you advocate, then we should rename the article to "Netherlands Guilder". I propose to do this shortly unless anyone can provide a very good reason why not. NFH 19:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with that but (but "guilder" not "Guilder"!). I already did all the redirect articles to "Dutch guilder". Possibly this should be discussed at the Style guide page where I left the note above, so as not to piss people off. Evertype 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although ISO 4217 uses upper case initial letters, I'm not bothered about upper or lower case. If you or anyone else want to go ahead and make the change, please go ahead - don't wait for me to do it. NFH 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then such exception (and all exceptions) should be documented in the style guide. --Chochopk 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Evertype et al. are coming in at the end of a long debate on this matter. We established some months ago that we should use local names, even when ISO 4217 uses English names. You'll find the discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style. Before you start hacking about with all the currency articles, make your case there.
Dove1950 22:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read the archives. I don't see any particularly convincing discussion about linguistic choices as regards either guilder or ruble (vs gulden and рубль/rubl’). But I've taken the discussion to the Numismatics/Talk page. Evertype 23:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date of replacement by the euro

[edit]

This article states that

The gulden [..] was the name of the currency [..] until 1999, when it was replaced by the euro (coins and notes were not introduced until 2002).

However, the article on the Euro states that

It [the euro] was introduced to world financial markets in 1999 and launched as a currency in 2002.

(Emphasis in both is mine)

These two statements seem to contradict each other. Also, being Dutch myself, the Gulden did indeed remain the Dutch currency until 2002, not 1999, although the exchange rate between euro and gulden was fixed in 1999, iirc. Perhaps someone with access to the right sources can investigate.

Unfortunately, there are certain Wikipedians (probably not European) who are convinced that the euro became the currency of the Netherlands, etc., in 1999 because of the wording of the legislation establishing the euro. Feel free to correct this article. Every time I try, someone reverts. Look at Irish pound and Italian lira for some attempted compromises.
Dove1950 17:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

symbol

[edit]

Expert of Dutch matters, please help. Is the symbol ƒ before numbers or after? Is there a space between ƒ and the numbers or not? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. In Dutch usage, there was usually a space between the symbol and the amount, and the use of commas and periods is inverted in Europe, resulting in:
ƒ 9,99
In any case, it was placed before the amount, not after such as what the French are doing with the € sign. However, in English usage I suppose we should simply adhere to the same anglicised method used for the Euro:
ƒ9.99 (following £9.99, $9.99, €9.99)
For consistency and clarity, I suppose. SergioGeorgini 10:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol

[edit]

I'm native Dutch, so to answer your questions: - The 'f' is always before numbers. - Usually and officialy there is no space between between the 'f' and the number (same as with the €-sign).

Chinese name

[edit]

From the article: 'The Chinese translation for "florin" and consequently "guilder" is "盾" (literally: shield). <...> As a result, currencies in the guilder-based Aruba and Netherlands Antilles are still referred to as "盾".' I presume this means that the Chinese name for the currencies in Aruba and Netherlands Antilles is 盾, not the currencies in Aruba and Netherlands Antilles are referred to as 盾 in their respective countries. (These are Caribbean countries, why should they use Chinese symbols to refer to their currencies?) -- 131.111.8.97 20:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amounts

[edit]

It was divided into 20 stuiver, each of 8 duit or 16 penning.

Normally, amounts with stuiver, duit or penning are with multiples in Dutch, eg:

It was divided into 20 stuivers, each of 8 duiten or 16 penningen.

Anybody have opinions? --194.134.195.193 11:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Dutch. From my experience with notes and coins, I get the feeling that plural in Dutch would be -en -er or same as singular. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of banknotes

[edit]

"Following the war, the Netherlands Bank introduced notes for 10, 20, 25, 50, 100 and 1000 guilders. The last 20 guilder notes were dated 1955, whilst 5 guilder notes were introduced in 1966 (replaced by coins in 1987) and 250 guilder in 1985."

This history may be incomplete or incorrect. When I grew up in the Netherlands in the 1970s, there were no 50 guilder notes. I don't know if they were canceled after 1955 and then re-introduced, or if the above sentence is incorrect and the 50 guilder note simply didn't exist until the 1980s. Can someone check this? Jac Goudsmit (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

50 guilder notes were printed with dates 1852, 1884, 1929, 1941, 1943, 1945 and 1982. The (postwar) 1945-issue was withdrawn from circulation on 16 July 1960. The next 50 guilder note (dated 1982) entered circulation on 7 september 1982. So, between 1960-1982 there were no 50 guilder notes....The text is correct.Ivanh1 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name origins

[edit]

I don't believe "gulden" is stemming from "gouden" and/or "verguld" as the article states: I believe "gulden" is the old Dutch word for "golden" but was in later Dutch replaced by the word "gouden". No sources to base this on, though.
DWizzy 12:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly true. Although I have no sources at hand to verify this. "Gulden" is simply archaic for "gouden", both of which mean "golden". SergioGeorgini 10:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem:
"The Dutch name gulden was a Middle Dutch adjective meaning 'golden', and the name indicates the coin was originally made of gold. [...] The first guilder, a 10.61g .910 silver coin..." (from the article)
So if the name "guilder" does indeed mean golden, and since it can't possibly indicate that it was originally made of gold (it wasn't), what does it indicate? That it was as good as gold, even though in reality it was backed by a mix of gold and silver? Nobody's going to call their currency "as good as a mix of gold and silver." It's probably just a brilliant PR move. Anyway, this is an area that needs elucidation, and until then, I propose removing the passage about what the name indicates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.116.19 (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:1gulden2001back.jpg

[edit]

Image:1gulden2001back.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion was move. This is a non-administrator close of a discussion. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch gulden → Dutch guilder — As per WP:UE (Use English: "… use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works.") Many respected English language references use guilder such as Encyclopædia Britannica[1], the BBC[2][3][4], etc., the CIA World Factbook[5] (Note: an old 2002 version) (before the adoption of the euro). The Dutch Central Bank also uses guilder in the English version of its website [6], whilst it uses gulden in the Dutch version of its website [7]. Guilder is the English name for the currency and gulden is the Dutch name for it.
There is also a proposal to modify Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style that currently call for using non-English names for currencies is also under discussion at its talkpage. – Axman (☏) 05:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support this change and the larger change of Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics guidelines. This is English wikipedia. On the Dutch wikipedia, the English pound is called the pond, while the Spanish wikipedia and the Chinese wikipedia call the American dollar the dólar and 美元, respectively. These and likely hundreds of other examples demonstrate a willfull disregard of the "local name". We shouldn't feel apologetic about doing the same.Erudy (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a matter of fact, I think we should. Spanish Wikipedia is Spanish, Chinese Wikipedia is Chinese and Dutch Wikipedia is Dutch. English Wikipedia is becoming less English, due to the influx of editors and visitors all over the world who are either discontent about the lack or size of the articles on their "own" Wikipedias. I don't like the Croatian Wikipedia, so I've come here. The part of the world having English as their mother tongue does not make the majority here and simple statistics should be able to prove it. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But unless there's a well-documented widespread trend to dilute the English language with foreign loanwords, Wikipedia has no business preempting usage of local names over English names. As for this particular case of the Dutch currency, it's quite well-documented that the prevalent English name is "Dutch guilder" and we ought to be using it. --seav (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's even better documented that this name was never used on the currency and was simply a nickname used by English speakers. An encyclopaedia should give priority to real names, not nicknames, or do you suggest moving United States dollar to United States buck?
          Dove1950 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, but we have Bill Clinton; how's that for an article located on a nickname? Well, the buck is a nickname for the unit, not the currency. We say "that costs 10 bucks" not "The currency of the United States is the buck" so your buck example is invalid. Besides, it's well-documented that the most common English name for the American currency is "U.S. dollar"; that's what reliable and reputable sources like the BBC, CNN, business magazines, English-language newspapers (in their business sections), academic journals, and other encyclopedias use. --seav (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Basing on the evidence presented above and the longstanding Wikipedia guidelines of Use English and Use Common Name, "guilder" is definitely more preferable than "gulden". --seav (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong support - "Nederlandse gulden" is the correct Dutch language term. "Dutch guilder" is the English language term. "Dutch gulden" is correct in neither language (being half English, half Dutch), and makes exactly as much sense as calling it "Nederlandse guilder". If the numismatic guidelines say otherwise, they are wrong, and the current discussion there seems to reflect that - they will be changed shortly, I believe. Neıl ☎ 09:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong support as per Neil here, as per my own comments at the top of this page from 2006. I also support changing the numismatic guidelines. -- Evertype·✆ 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

Reply to comment left by Dove1950:

There won't be any Dutch coins or banknotes that has guilder written on it, because guilder is the English name of the currency, whilst gulden is the Dutch name — hence Dutch name on Dutch currency, it only makes sense. You wouldn't see the Dutch, German, French, et al. names for the pound sterling on British notes and coins, because pound is the English name and therefore has the English name on British currency. – Axman (☏) 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a sensible proposal to describe articles which have their names written on them by names which are not written on them?
Dove1950 (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when the language the name is written in is not in English. This is the English Wikipedia. Neıl ☎ 09:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And while it might work in a fashion in this particular case to use the Dutch words, what of the wording on Greek, Russian, Chinese, Japanese or Korean currency? Is it a sensible proposal to describe articles using symbols that are completely meaningless to the reader, when common English names for these same articles exist? Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will support the resulted, possibly new, guideline from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style#Guidelines change proposal. Fix a class of a problem, not an instance of a problem. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can work either way. My experience is that most successful policy changes are just documenting what we were already doing, after the fact. Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fair use rationale for Image:1gulden2001front.jpg

[edit]

Image:1gulden2001front.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dutch 5 cent.jpg

[edit]

Image:Dutch 5 cent.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change size

[edit]

I'm not sure how to change the size of the infobox image to 150px instead of 252px. Could somebody please do this? StaticGull  Talk  13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Netherlands91s-1968o.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the etymology of the word guilder predate the creation of the dutch guilder by two centuries?

[edit]

According to [etymonline.com http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=guilder&searchmode=none] the word guilder was first used around 1481, but the dutch guilder was only first coined in 1680.

guilder: Du. coin, c.1481, from Du. gulden, lit. "golden."

Was the word dutch word gulden translated to guilder for other purposed in the 15th century?

Before the introduction of the first 'Gulden', there were regional and foreign golden coins that were likely referred to as 'gulden'. The first internationally accepted dutch coin called Gulden dates from 1517 (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolusgulden, not to be confused with the English Carolus). Even before that, the state of Holland was minting golden coins since 1378. 212.72.34.175 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banknotes vs. Coinnotes

[edit]

I don't know if the term coinnnote (a certificate exchangeable to (a certain amount of) coin(s)) is used in the English language. But according to the Dutch coin-almanac of 2011 the (historic) term for silver-certificate's (zilver bons/nen) and other notes is coinnote (muntbiljet) and not banknote (bankbiljet). The site: http://www.nvmh.nl/--77.169.238.179 (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch guilder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dutch_guilder&oldid=1201699108"