Talk:Eurozone/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Beyond Recognition

This website has been changed beyond recognition ever since the entry of Cyprus and Malta. Many important details and quotes have disappeared, and somebody has turned this well-researched article into an article full of appoximations. Please fix!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyhoser (talk • contribs) 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been monitoring this article for a year or two. I don't think a large portion has disappeared. However, a lot has been moved to Enlargement of the eurozone. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction needed in the image

gibraltar should be coloured the same way as britain is, cause it IS part of the eu but don't use the euro --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Euro outside map

Template:Euro outside map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Error on maps.

Dear sir/madam,

I am from Cyprus and I have to say that I am at least offended by the way in your map Cyprus is shown. If you see in the map Cypus is shown as two independent countries. If you check a little bit your facts you will see that no country other than Turkey recognised the north occupied area (by Turkey) as independent state. UN, NATO, EU, etc all of them recognise Cyprus as one and independent (not two countries). So, proof that Wikipedia is shown actual facts and not doing external policy (for Turkey) by correcting this serious mistake.

Thank you, Regards, George Rodosthenous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.46.149 (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The map is about places that use the Euro(the currency) not whether or not the TRNC has sovereignty, seeing as the TRNC uses the Turkish Lira the map is correct.--SelfQ (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

ditto, this is euro usage, not states.- J Logan ^t: 11:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of territorial claims, the euro isn't used in that part of the island of Cyprus, so the map should show that the euro isn't used there. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

On the other hand, a map later in the article colours the TRNC as a "non-EU member with free-floating currencies". So I suppose that that map states that TRNC is a country. Not sure if it should be changed, though. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

I disagree, it states as you said "non-EU member with free-floating currencies", the sovereignty of those non-eu members is not discussed. --SelfQ (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The question here is whether Northern Cyprus is an EU member or not. The EU claims that part of the island as part of the EU. The TRNC claims (I suppose) that the TRNC isn't an EU member. Whether it is an EU member or not affects which colour to use on the map. If TRNC is an "EU member with a free-floating currency", then one colour should be used. If TRNC is a "non-EU member with a free-floating currency", then a different colour should be used. If TRNC is part of the Republic of Cyprus, then that part of the island is part of an "eurozone country"; only, that particular part of the island isn't part of the eurozone. This could mean that a third colour should be used. (130.237.227.61 (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

In the section about countries using the euro without formal agreement, there is a discussion about Cyprus and you mention "the part of Cyprus that is not in the EU". The Republic of Cyprus is legally one country and all of it is in the EU. The only difference is that the acquis communitaire (EU laws) is suspended in the north is it is not under government control. This should be corrected. Turkish Cypriots are EU citizens like Greek Cypriots and live on EU territory. Paul Tzimas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.131.14 (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland and the euro

What is Switzerland's official stance on adopting/not adopting the euro? I'm sure it won't be using it in the near future, but what about long term plans? Has any such statement been made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.44.72 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

They will need to join the europen union first, and considering their banking policy, that may take a while. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You dont need to be a EU member to use the Euro, but I dont think it will happen the next few dacades. --SelfQ (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking you do. Non-EU countries using the euro now were using a pre-euro currency before 2002 and hence were allowed to continue - given that most are microstates who would have trouble maintaining their own currency. The ECB has signalled it is against any further adoption outside the EU, especially unilaterally. See the news on Iceland.- J Logan ^t: 10:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Joining the euro it is not as simple as just adopting a currency, Switzerland will have to be ruled by all the regulations of the ECB. That includes interest rates, legal and compliance, personal information protection … etc. Again, considering their banking strength, I do not see this happening in ages. Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Title: Euro Area vs Eurozone vs Euro zone

hey, I was reading up on some European politics etc. and came across this document http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370300.htm from the europa official organization denouncing the name "eurozone" in favor of "euro area." Shouldn't Wikipedia reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.175.169 (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If it becomes a standard, even an un-official one, I see no problems changing the terms in Wikipedia. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The expression most commonly used is EUROZONE and I prefer it. I am an EUROZONER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.111.123 (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To All: Pls read first sentence of the article. Cheers, Iterator12n ^Talk 04:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Iterator12n, there is still the issue of what the article itself is called, regardless of whether all the names are mentioned in the intro. To the unsigned editor, I have to say I have never heard the term "Eurozoner", does anyone else know of, or use, this term? I think considering the ECB is formally against the term eurozone there is an argument for changing the name, what are the thoughts of others? A quick flick on Google actually shows more hits for euroland than eurozone, with euro area coming quite low down. From first pages, euroland is informal, eurozone is financial and euro area is on official pages - as we describe. Though lets not use google as a decision making mechanism of course.

What are the thoughts of others?- _JLogan^t: 21:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My quick thoughts... FIRST, stick with Eurozone, for a combination of two reasons: (1) it's the most common term (re. Google, FWIW, the counts of "eurozone" plus "euro zone" beat the sum of "euroland" and "euro land") ; and (2) per WP:NCP "the name of an article should be the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". SECOND, if we stick with the "euro()zone" idea, proper style calls for "euro zone," not "eurozone." If so, the title of the article becomes Euro zone, per WP:MOS. HTH. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're going for most common, then it would be eurozone rather than euro zone using google. Though if you note the kind of results, as I did in my last post, there is difference in usage. And of course one has to ask, although eurozone is more common, is it common? Can people check normal (i.e. not official or financial orientated) media outlets, blogs, forums etc and see what people are using to describe the eurozone?- _JLogan^t: 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd just like to say that from media searches so far, hardly anyone says "euro zone", it is always treated as one word, as a proper noun.- _JLogan^t: 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: Compound words are bad for the eyes. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: I actually quite like Eurozone to be honest, it has style.- _JLogan^t: 10:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favour of "euro area". It is prescribed by the EU institutional style guide and is also the most frequent according to Google Scholar. www.britannica.com has "euro area" as the lemma and a "redirect" from "euro zone" (no entry for "Eurozone"). We should, of course, have redirects from "eurozone" and "euro zone"--Boson (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also be in favour of renaming the article "euro area". It has got one million hits on google, and it's used quite often in the press. Aside from Malta, Ireland is the only native English country using the euro. When I've been on the websites of Irish newspapers, I've seen "euro area" used more often than "eurozone". And it sounds more formal. - SSJ ☎ 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Eurozone sounds much commoner to me and it's not a half-way house between (the commical) Euroland and (the overly formal?) Euro Area. Today's editorial in the Irish Times uses the word Eurozone. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think 'euro area' is too formal. Yes, of course 'eurozone' is also used. But I would assume that the simple fact that 'euro area' is also pretty common in normal language (not to mention the fact that Encyclopedia Britannica uses 'euro area'), would imply that Wikipedia, being a formal-style encyclopedia, should pick the formal name. - SSJ ☎ 22:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I find that "Eurozone" flows a bit better than "euro area". Therefore, I am in favor of eurozone. MissMeticulous (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So you mean the "flow" of a word overrides all notions about what's official? I personally don't find it that hard to pronounce "euro area". - SSJ ☎ 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This article and discussion displays perfectly how backwards Wikipedia can at times be. There is no doubt that "euro area" is the official designation. Just see www.ecb.int. This article is yet titled eurozone because somebody "feels" it sounds nicer and other one thinks he is "a eurozoner". How utterly ridiculous. 88.112.1.198 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Largest Economy in the World

This claim is absolutely ridiculous. You don't get to arbitrarily lump countries together and claim it's the biggest economy. You might as well say that the North American countries comprising NAFTA are the biggest, or that the combined US-Chinese economy is the biggest. This is goofy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.173.46 (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly a case for questioning whether the Eurozone/Euro Area is to be regarded as a single economy, but to dismiss the notion so contemptuously is unhelpful. It is not a case of arbitrarily lumping countries together: the countries concerned do have a considerable degree of economic unity in a way that is not so with NAFTA, and does not even begin to be so with combined US-China. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The line "Based on official estimates of 2007 GDP, the Eurozone is the largest economy in the world." is no longer accurate. Based on 2007 GDP, the Eurozone is the largest economy in the world when the euro is valued at or more than $1.56. The euro is currently bouncing around $1.50. I made this change and less than an hour later it was changed back. Please note that the articles the sentence uses as references are not inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.23.26.54 (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The article clearly says "based on official estimates of 2007 GDP". Unless you have the official GDP numbers of August 2008, comparing the GDP of 2007 with yesterday's exchange rate is not accurate, don't you think? You have to consider that the GDP of the Eurozone grew by just adding Malta and Cyprus this year, and it will grow once again by just adding Slovakia next year; on top of its normal growth. The subprime crisis have had a negative impact in US GDP, and most likely the Eurozone will continue to be the first on the list once the official numbers are produced, but that is just speculation and is better to keep it away from Wikipedia articles.

I would suggest to change the texts to "based on official estimates of 2007 GDP" or something similar where ever is not clear that this is the reference we are making. Best regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, with have to stick to official figures, even if they are a few months out, as that is better than daily guess work.- J Logan ^t: 10:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

At the end of 2007, the GDP of the United States was greater than the GDP of the Eurozone using currency exchange rates at the end of 2007. In March, the euro crossed $1.56 to the dollar. At that point, the Eurozone was the largest economy base on 2007 GDP numbers and current exchange rates. Using that same logic (2007 GDP numbers and current exchange rates), the United States is, once again, the largest economy in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.23.26.54 (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The current statement reads "Based on official estimates of 2007 GDP and purchasing power parity among the various currencies, the Eurozone is the largest economy in the world." This does not seem to be suported by the references, which (as I read them) refer to PPP only in reference to the EU, not the Eurozone. The references to the Eurozone seem to use the exchange rate, not PPP. They support the claim that the Eurozone was the largest economy in 2007 based on the exchange rate in March 2008, but do not support the claim if we use the current exchange rates or the 2007 exchange rates. So the claim needs amending, and/or the references need changing. I would prefer a modified statement that makes economic sense and does not need to be changed monthly with changes in the exchange rate.--Boson (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. Pls proceed. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement has now been altered again by someone to read Based on official estimates of 2009 GDP, the Eurozone is the largest economy in the world.. This is not supported by the current references. Even if 2009 estimates were appropriate, the IMF 2009 estimates for the data specified (GDP/PPP) are (by my reading) 11,089.199 billion for the Eurozone and 14,533.167 billion for the USA. Is someone confusing the Eurozone with the EU, or have I missed something?--Boson (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I missed that change, go ahead and change it back! Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just saw this was corrected. It is the same (big fan of the EU) user. I have posted a note in his talk page. Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Depending on the exchange rates used, the eurozone's economy is either slightly larger or smaller than that of the United States, the largest national economy in the world.[4] The eurozone has a population of 326 million people and has a GDP (PPP) of 8.4 (14.6% of global GDP)." - this statement was never right; it's comparing the economy of the WHOLE European Union (not just the Eurozone...so the UK etc too) against the United States in an article that is about the Eurozone. The Economy of the United States still eclipses the Eurozone's combined economy, updating to reflect this 122.57.167.241 (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Map under Enlargement lacks Andorra

The map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Euro_outside.PNG under the Enlargement section shows red dots for UK bases in Cyprus as non-EU members that have adopted the euro unilaterally, but doesn't show Andorra, even though it is listed in the description below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.46.22 (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

you forgot Monaco too Olliyeah (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Monaco has adopted with agreement, presumably the map intended to include those with the formal eurozone (hence San Marino and the Vatican also not shown) and made the mistake of include Andorra.- J Logan ^t: 11:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

map under enlargement lacks morocco

although not a member of the E.U its currency is pegged at the euro so should be greenish blue like Bosnia and Herzegovina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.96.32 (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is pegged to a basket of currencies, focused mainly on the euro but not entirely. BiH is a direct pegg, hence not comparable.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Euro/Euros

As the Euro page has the plural of Euro as Euros, should we have the same here? Ochib (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC).

The only place I noticed where this would be an issue is here: "They switched to the euro when the mark was replaced but have no agreement with the ECB; rather the country depends only on euro already in circulation." [emphasis added]

The cited source for this statement uses "euros".--Boson (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia

Already started it seems, people thinking they are writing in the future's. To everyone, please do not add Slovakia as a Eurozone member until 00:00:01 1 January 2009 - it is possible to wait that long and you will not get an award for doing it first. Of course no one listens, so based on past experience maybe we can get semi-protection to save the hassle?- _J.Logan`^t: 17:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried but an administrator said there is no recent activity. That is because he saw only this article, but in reality is this article, Slovak euro coins, Enlargement of the Eurozone, Template:Euro adoption future, Slovakia and Slovak koruna. Shall we try again? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Who can change the colour of Slovakia on the image to light blue. Now it has another than Eurozone members colour. 3 days passed and still old information. --Dima1 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What are u talkin' about...?! It has already been changed..!Olliyeah (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific. I also see updated images only. Tomeasy _{T C} 23:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, everithing is correct now. The problem was that the image I saw was originally old and loaded from cash. Sorry again. --Dima1 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Italy leaving

do we have any official sources because some of the predictions include this happening if things get to bad.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I overheard that Ohio is leaving the US Dollar if things get worse. Fortunately, there's no serious official sources about both statements. :) WinstonSmith (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't fucking joking asshole so I don't see why you had to make it a joke.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you did not actually give any sources that this was being discussed by Italy, your original post seemed rather humorous. Your response to WinstonSmith's joke seems to be WAAAAAAY out of line. Loosen up.Khajidha (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As my talk page history showes; annoying me is a quick way to get insulted--Ssteiner209 (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that Ssteiner209 has been blocked Indef for the above insults. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Lacking a sense of humor can result in a short duration on wikipedia. As can having an exaggerated sense of self-importance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources because it is just an absurd thing: nobody made this prediction, nor politicians, nor economists. I live in Italy. Gdmercury (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Does Bulgaria in deed has its currency pegged with euro? Its not in ERM2 zone, like Denmark, Estonia, Lithuana and Latvia. Masur (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this answers your question. Otherwise comment back. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tomeasy's link should answer your question, but in essence the Lev was pegged to the German Mark at parity (1 lev = 1 mark). It is because of this that since the introduction to the euro in 1999 the lev is also pegged to the euro at the same rate that the mark is pegged. I hope it is clear now. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Höganäs

Why do you remove information about Höganäs? This city has fully adopted the euro not just itself but on the government level. The necessary references are provided. It differs from the other parts of Sweden and other non-eurozone places where euro is accepted. So this city should be mentioned it the corresponding table. --Dima1 (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what people miss is a clear cut between the individual choice of small community and an official policy. You seem to indicate that the latter applies to this town. If you convince people about this, it might be included.

On which level is it ruled that the euro is a legal tender in Hoeganaes? (How do you spell these letters in Sweden based on a 26-character alphabet?) Is this a national rule or a local decision? Was the national reserve bank involved in this? These might be interesting questions. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources clearly says that 60% of all business have decided to accept euros and krones, no where it says that this little town has unilaterally adopted the euro. In Varadero, Cuba, euro is widely accepted everywhere, even in government hotels, rent a cars, tourist spots ... does that clasify to add it to the table? Of course not. Note that I am not against adding the line in the paragraph, I am against the addition to the table. Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is no more to the whole story than that "60% of all business have decided to accept euros", than it clearly has to go, also from the prose. It is relevant to the article of the town, however.

Sorry for not reading the sources myself. I was looking forward to receiving an explanation from Dima as to why the situation in this town is different from the many informal decisions taken by businesses all over the world to accept the euro. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Publicity stunts like Höganäs (2009) and Haparanda (2001) don't last - go to the Haparanda website and you won't find a trace of its stunt in 2001. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FREAK SHOW. Unbeatablevalue (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC) And don't forget, whether it is Haparanda (a border town) or Höganäs (a tourist town) in places like these there is always a good mix of currencies, but nothing notable when it comes to Wikipedia's Eurozone. When it comes to "serious" subjects like eurozone, the Wikipedia reader isn't looking for anything freakish. Unbeatablevalue (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are being a bit harsh on the 'freak show', that is uncalled for. And the absence of mention does not mean the absence on the ground. I think that differs this adoption from tourism adoption it its use for things like rent and bills, this is clear every day usage in a country with a strong and internationally traded currency (distinguishing it from Cuba in two ways). I am totally against its inclusion in the table as Miguel.mateo has stated, but I don't see the harsh reaction in this case as being justified. However, I do see the point of this article being about the Eurozone, and hence I suggest we move the whole section on it being used as a trading currency back to the euro article where I think it came from.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, and for sure the emphasis is on opinion, an encyclopedia should emphasize the characteristic, the essence, the values that remain - not the exceptional, not the trivial, not the superficial, not the promotional, not the contested, not the temporal, not the incidental. Not to say the freakish. However, if an editor so desires, and if he/she is able to avoid the WP:OR and WP:POV traps, the cases of Höganäs and Haparanda can be used to illustrate the point that there are in Sweden people that would like to see their country’s adoption of the euro. The corollary is that the mention of H&H now removed was a disguised way of pushing a certain point of view, without the countervailing view that an adoption of the euro would be bad for Sweden and (most important) doesn't have political support from a majority of her voters. Enjoy Brussels! Unbeatablevalue (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The final point is debatable of course, but in general it was not the intent nor do I believe it conveys any notion that Swedish people in general want to adopt the euro. More, it displaying that on borders and in financial crises, its usage has been increasing due to the influence, strength and proliferation of the currency. Even aside from that though, we are discussing usage as a second currency - which indeed it is being used in these border towns and I believe this point is worth making as it is within the scope of the section. It does not open the door to usage in all tourist areas as both examples have clear characteristics that distinguish it from generic tourist use and I'm sure if there were other examples we could use any notion of bias in the Swedish matter could be avoided.- _J.Logan`^t: 22:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You will not agree but other people may see the H&H stories and others like them as euro-triumphant. More, the whole eurozone article (and other articles too, such as Euro) is skewed towards the triumphant – not a whole lot but in line with the tone that I hear above, [euro] usage has been increasing due to the influence, strength and proliferation of the currency. However, for the same money I can find any number of recent news items about pressures on Italy, Spain, Ireland, Greece and Portugal to drop out of the eurozone. Not that I hope or think the latter will actually happen (the mess of getting out is in all likelihood worse than the mess of staying in, and fixed exchange rates are probably the way of the future) but there certainly is at present very little to be triumphant about, currency-wise. Returning to the real subject at hand: Wikipedia is served by balance, not by the long list of mis-qualities that I already listed above. Regarding Brussels, I should be more specific: enjoy the food. Unbeatablevalue (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not make this a POV discussion whether we like Brussels or not. I follow your, Unbeatablevalues's (UV's), argumentation as long as it is about relevance, but why do you have to expose your anti-Eu sentiments to make this point?

I think, we should discuss whether the fact that bills and rents can be paid makes it more than the usual incident. We should try to find more official evidence, if we want to keep it. My opinion is that it is not worth mentioning, if just some business people (or landlords) decide to accept it. If the Swedish government or a (regional) parliament gave its consent or was somehow involved, I might change my opinion. I will put a note on Dima1's talk page to request more facts for this case, and ask him to join the discussion. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here I think we have the flaw. You see this article as too pro-euro because it talks about successes and not failures. When seeking to address this, it is easier to simply REMOVE the successes, yet it would be better for the article for you to actually put the effort in to ADDING material for the failures to create balance.

I am not suggesting that the Swedish towns be kept on this argument, but it is part of a wide problem on these articles. The majority of reliable data and base facts on the EU are seen as overly positive in the eyes of those against the project as the anti material is often no included because it comes from unreliable for fringe sources, or have nothing to do with the basic existence of whatever entity is being discussed.

If you have such concerns, please seek to add the failures of the Eurozone to the article, rather than falling into the trap of most and removing existing material. (I am not saying the current debate is such a biased removal of data, it is of course a topic of valid discussion, I am merely making this recommendation based on the points you have articulated.)- _J.Logan`^t: 11:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

First, let’s get the “sentimental” stuff out of the way. In this anonymous environment, all you have are these words that you may not find another person with greater EU and euro fervor than Unbeatablevalue – rational fervor that is. Second, on substance: Eurozone and related articles are unbalanced and are missing out on the enormous risks in maintaining a common currency, particularly during difficult economic times. (As always, risks are identified to be tackled, not to let them bloom into disasters.) To put it colloquially, anybody can maintain a common currency during good times, but what about the hard times? None of that is coming through in Eurozone, in spite of there being source material in professional papers. Related articles such as Stability and Growth Pact are outdated, and equally fluffy. The usual question to an editor bringing up these kinds of issues is, what stops you from improving the articles? Answer: People that find Höganäs stories interesting and want to keep these stories around (present discussants excluded!) should not be bothered with a review of issues such as the lack of political integration, an integration necessary to hold up a common currency in hard times. The present contents of Eurozone and others discourage (are incompatible with) a serious representation of weighty issues. Call it a conflict of intended audience. For the time being, I’ll lurk around and keep an eye on how the articles evolve. Thanks. Unbeatablevalue (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My humble opinion:

• H&H does not have a place here, although nice stories, because we are talking about the Eurozone. If we are going to start introducing success stories of the Euro (Cuba, Zimbawe, Iraq pre US invasion), we are deviating from the original article.
• If the article is unbalanced, then balance it by adding the right information, not by removing information that is reliable and sourced.

My two yen worth opinion. Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Aaaah, the wonders of the Zimbabwean economy. Reuters, Feb 2: “The country is battling the world’s highest inflation rate, officially put at 231 million percent.” I guess the “success” was limited. On the other hand, what about successes in Afghanistan in the time of the Taliban, or how about North Korea? Should make some good copy. Unbeatablevalue (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbeatablevalue, you seem to have skimmed round my point. Yes, they are unbalanced. But if you think that, please add the relevant information rather than lurk around and complain about a single line. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from writing about the dangers of monetary union, in fact I'm sure everyone here would welcome it.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Höganäs thing is just a publicity stunt and means that most shops have agreed to accept euro notes, and that the bank has supported this. On the web page http://www.hoganas.se/standard.asp?id=1960, it is written in translation: "Tourists and other vistors can now use euros as payment in most shops. The project "EURO-CITY" is an example of cooperation between the municipality, shopping, banks and house owners. To be able to use euros in the shops is good for the visitors and for those coming home from a journey with euros remaining. This promotion of Höganäs as the EURO-CITY has given echo in the media. (listing 6 swedish papers, the TV news and BBC News)". To be added: English Wikipedia. Conclusion, a PR stunt. There must be many shops along the eurozone border in Poland, Czech rep, Hungary, Croatia that accept euros. The price level is lower there than in Germany, Austria, attracting shoppers.--BIL (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus

In the section about countries using the euro without formal agreement, there is a discussion about Cyprus and you mention "the part of Cyprus that is not in the EU". The Republic of Cyprus is legally one country and all of it is in the EU. The only difference is that the acquis communitaire (EU laws) is suspended in the north is it is not under government control. This should be corrected. Turkish Cypriots are EU citizens like Greek Cypriots and live on EU territory. Paul Tzimas158.169.131.14 (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually we were referring to the British bases Cyprus, which I'm reasonably sure aren't past of the Republic of Cyprus either de-jure or de-facto. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, there is a reference in there actually. I've corrected it.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Economic climates effect on potential Euro membership

How about a section on countries considering using the Euro unilaterally or joing the EU to become a member of the Euro? For example Iceland is planning a referendum?.I believe theirs also been some recent talk on the channel islands adopting it unilaterlly as they feel their economies are becoming closer to France than the UK (Ironically while the tourism board has just started a "come to Jersey where theirs no Euro" campaign in the UK to take advantage of the weak Pound putting off continental shoppers) but will have to dig up a source on that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.59.165 (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Channel Islands, in 2003 (the last time the British government formally rejected euro membership) Jersey actually warned that it may not join the euro even if the UK did, preferring to establish its own currency or adopt the US Dollar in order to protect its tax status - the mainstay of its economy. Though times have changed, I would be wary of suggesting that they are likely to have reversed this position, and would suggest that that any edit suggesting that either Bailiwick is discussing joining unilaterally would need to be pretty well cited (as you appear to recognise). Pfainuk talk 14:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick search on google news. Not the slightest hint of a mention regarding the channel islands adopting the euro anywhere.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's be realistic: introducing the euro unilateraly not only is a huge cost for the country (the local central bank has to have enough reserve to buy all euros the country need and scratch its currency) but it is also a major political statement "we do not want to play by the EU rules, we just want the euro" ... in other words, I do not see this scenario as realistic, hence not worth to be mentioned unless there are good sources saying the countrary. Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

De facto?

I don't think we can say that Kosovo, Montenegro and Andorra are de facto part of the eurozone. In no way are they part of the day-to-day processes around the euro that are carrried out by the ECB and the euro area national banks. The three entities have made a unilateral move that is not recognized by the EU or the ECB. A normal understanding of de facto would mean being part of the day-to-day processes. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 22:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This article takes both the narrow and the broad definition of the eurozone. The formal euro area are just the 16 EU states, this article also deals with euro usage in those countries using it in its entirety (by this, it is not only the above, but those countries with agreements as they are also not part of the decision making process).- _J.Logan`^t: 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article is Eurozone. And let's agree that we treat "eurozone" and "euro area" as synonyms. (If not, an alternative would be to have an euro area article separate from Eurozone. I don't like the idea, it would lead to a good amount of mystification.) Then: Kosovo, Montenegro and Andorra, but also Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City are NOT part of the eurozone - this statement can be backed up by ECB sources. On this point, the Eurozone with its present contents should be changed. It is not upon Wikipedia to redefine the eurozone/euro area. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 03:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope I misunderstand you here. Do you want to remove all mentioning on this article that these six countries use the euro as their sole and official currency? Tomeasy _{T C} 09:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First, yes eurozone and euro area are treated as the same. But in the same way we use the common name rather than the official, we should cater to a common definition as well as the official one. Do note that confusion is mitigated by the fact we have the heading "MEMBER usage" and NON-member usage" it their status officially is catered for without having to split the article into two which would needlessly scatter related information. Furthermore, I don't think we should change the name from eurozone as - for the same reason we use the common name - people know know it, are looking for it and understand it. What do we put instead? "List of countries and territories which have adopted the euro as the sole currency"? Can we not quibble over minor details here, the facts are laid out in the text so anyone who reads it won't be mislead.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I put the "de-facto" bit into the article. I'll explain why. This article is really just an article about the countries that use the euro. In reality countries adopt the euro, rather than join the eurozone, at least this is how it looks if you read the treaties. Consequently this article is really just about the countries which use the single currency, but the title is "Eurozone". Rather than simply saying "these places use the euro", I said "they are a de facto part of the eurozone". If we weren't prepared to say that, you'd have to wonder why we should mention Kosovo, Montenegro and Andorra at all.

For the case in point I can also find a source to say that the Vatican isn't part of the Schenghen Area, but since the Italian's don't patrol the border, we say it's a de facto part of it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact that is an important point on the treaties. The eurozone doesn't exist, even the euro group is informal. There is no legal entity called eurozone or euro area and hence we can define it how we bally well want I suppose :p- _J.Logan`^t: 00:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Euro area" is defined by ECB's glossary, and illustrated by the ECB here. Anybody want to split the article in two? one article about eurozone (where there probably is no authoritative definition, creating open season for us article writers, with room for arbitrariness) and a separate article about euro area?? Note that the ECB needs precision, for example, when it comes to economic and demographic statistics. The ECB cannot fudge the definition of a key concept such as the euro area. (BTW, look at this table, the ECB shows an euro area population of 323.2 persons (2009 number), more than 2 million people fewer than what our Eurozone article shows. In economics and finance, you don't get very far without sharp definitions.) -- Iterator12n ^Talk 04:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

More notable stuff, this from the website of the European Commission: "The 'euro area' is the official term for the group of EU Member States that have adopted the euro as their currency." This for people who suppose that they "can define [euro area] how we bally well" etc. Not to mention WP:OR. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 05:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My point was meant to illustrate that it does not officially exist, therefore we should not feel bound by constrains for an accurate article title. We can call it Eurozone and include all data so long as it is made clear in the text regarding definitions. I was not actually suggesting we come up with a totally new definition for the word though I do remind you that we deal with common definitions as well as formal ones.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and however we define it, I think everyone here would agree that eurozone and euro area would be the same thing - if we split it into two articles not only do we scatter information needlessly but we could cause confusion between the two words.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I've modified the lead accordingly. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've had a look around and the sources seem to agree that only EU members which adopt the euro are part of the eurozone. Actually what really managed to change my mind was that I can't imagine that statistics for the eurozone include any of these places.

Anyway if these places aren't part of the eurozone, this article sections on "Non-member usage", and "People affected by the euro", don't belong here. They should be moved to the euro article of spun off in a new article on extra-eurozone euro usage. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 14:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, there is no need to split the article. Although there are some differences, they are too closely interlinked, 16 or 16+6 etc. We are talking about the usage of the euro (though I'd like to see the "people affected by" just deleted, it is quasi-trivia and dubious in source) and although there is a slight disconnect between the title and content, it is small enough to be rectified by clarifications in the text. Everything is intergrated in this topic though, just look at the maps - do we have a single map showing just the eurozone without the others? No, because they all use the euro and the only difference is that 16 of them have a seat at the ECB.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose a split. It appears extremely artificial to me to have one article about the euro area (16 countries) and one about the eurozone (22 countries). Nobody, would intuitively guess this difference in meanings of the two articles. This would be OR, I think, where we try to make up our own consistent naming convention where actually there just does not exist one. Agreed, euro area is the official name for the 16, but the term eurozone is also very common. It may once refer to the same club of 16 and in another use to the countries that use the euro. I find the approach we had fine. It made very clear that the 6 have no say in the monetary decision, but it mentioned them - of course, since readers will look here to find a list of countries that use the euro. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, let's be clear: I agree that "sections on 'Non-member usage', and 'People affected by the euro', don't belong here, [t]hey should be moved to the euro article". That's all. Simple. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Tomeasy, I'm not suggesting that there's a difference between the eurozone and the euro area.

What I am saying is that use of the euro outside the eurozone shouldn't be in an article in about the eurozone. Why couldn't we have an article about euro usage in the greater world, including information about currencies tied to the euro, countries/places which have unilaterally adopted the euro and its use as a reserve currency.

Alternatively I would suggest an article on "European microstates and the euro". These places really are quite insignificant, giving space to them on either here or on the euro article might be construed as undue weight. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that makes more sense then.

We would have to see whether - as I think - the term eurozone is also often used to refer to all countries using the euro. If this is the case, I would go with Logan's argumentation for including it here, while making clear that there is a core zone that controls the euro currency.

Your proposition of an article about "euro usage in the greater world" appears also reasonable, but isn't there already an article about all the currencies pegged to the euro?

Least I agree with the microstates point you made. Kosovo and Montenegro are not microstates. Perhaps you only referred to the three states with formal agreements. However, those should be mentioned even on an article about the very official euro area. The monetary policy in this area is controlled by the ECB and they organized an agreement with those three states. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Microstates and euro would be a microscopic article. I'd suggest attaching it to Microstates and the European Union but as the sole source of information it would be out of place, people will be looking for a central source on euro usage - that is served by this article. Moving it to the euro article, I agree with BHL, would give undue weight to that subject, so equally I think it cannot go there. An independent article I still think would split data which is about the same thing essentially - for instance the enlargment sections would end up being totally duplicated. And exactly what will this new article contain to pad it out? Another "people affected by the euro" list? A long list of currencies pegged to the euro - and most due it by a basket now so exactly how important is that? That some gulf state ties its currency to the euro and 7 others?

Lets think about what constitutes the eurozone in reality. It is those countries which have adopted the euro as their sole legal tender, and abide by the monetary policy of the ECB as a result. The points dividing them are that these other countries are not represented in the ECB and cannot authorise notes or coins (except for three cases). I think the weighting of this is in favour of these countries being de facto members as the differences are tiny in comparison to the connection that arises through a common currency.

I suggest rather that we add more clarification, perhaps if we have a tag header at the top like;

This article discusses all those countries which have adopted the euro as their sole currency, however the official definition of the eurozone or euro area is limited to those EU states which have adopted it.

If that is put right at the top, before everything else, will it satisfy everyone?- _J.Logan`^t: 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Logan's last question: No, most certainly not, such a tag line would be wrong if the name of the article is "Eurozone" and the article equates Eurozone with euro area (as it seems to do in the proposed tag line, and as it may do more explicitly further down in the article). We keep missing the point that at least "euro area" is a well-defined concept - if we want to keep one article Eurozone=Euro_area (as we all seem to do) there is no room for fuzziness in the Eurozone article. No room for a whoever's-definition in addition to the official definition. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 02:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As I already said, I think there is a ood amount of fuzziness in the term Eurozone. Consequently, many readers will either come to find information on the 16 or the 22 countries. A good fraction will probably also come without prejudice on this. For all of them it would be helpful to explain that the term Eurozone, when use in publication might follow different concepts, and also that the ECB has a very strict understanding of the term euro area. That is, I disagree with Iterator to imply: Eurozone = euro area = definition in ECB references. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To repeat, an alternative is a separate article for Euro area. But then I wonder where you will get a sourced, authoritative, un-arbitrary definition of Eurozone, without getting into WP:OR. In fact, looking over this whole discussion, some of you guys and gals are skating close to thin WP:OR ice. Making things up. And it doesn't matter if some dimwitted, unnotable reporter has said it before. Too much of that. I say, Stay as close as possible to unshakeable facts. Easier to find consensus. (Side benefit of a limitation to unshakeable facts: It tends to shorten articles.) -- Iterator12n ^Talk 15:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Further to Tomeasy's thinking: A separate article for Eurozone may well concentrate on the fuzziness of its subject. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 15:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

De facto? (arb break)

On second thoughts, just because official definitions of the eurozone say the only 16 EU members are in the eurozone, doesn't mean that there aren't unofficial of de-facto members of the eurozone as well. Surely the whole point of saying that Monaco & co are de facto of unofficial eurozone members is that official sources don't list them. There appears to be quite a lot of confusion out there:

On the one hand:

"Because it is not an official member of the eurozone, Kosovo does not produce its own euro notes and coins."[1]

"Kosovo, whose ethnic Albanian majority is seeking independence for the province, also is a 'passive' member of the euro zone."[2]

"Two Balkan provinces will also belong to the euro zone, Montenegro and Kosovo, when the single currency is physically introduced at the end of this year."[3]

And on the other:

"Although it is not a member of the EU or Eurozone, Montenegro uses the Euro as its official currency"[4]

"Although not part of the Eurozone, Montenegro adopted the euro at the same time as it was introduced in EU countries"[5]

"Although it is not in the euro zone, Montenegro adopted the euro on January 1 to replace the deutsche mark"[6]

Whatever way you look at it these does seem to be a strong vein of thought that a country which unilterally adopts the euro is a de facto or unofficial, part of the eurozone.

(Btw I haven't changes my mind on one thing, a de facto member of the eurozone is a de facto member of the euro area. You can't separate the two.)— Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict, I was just about to break there as well!

Okay, we are getting bogged down now lets try shifting this is one direction or the other. I propose this fix: 1) other usage is shipped out entirely to International status and usage of the euro which will cover non-EU usage, reserve currency status and other such issues that the title implies. 2) This article shall be renamed Euro area and shall fit the ECB definition accordingly, however 3) it shall include a brief (sub) section on external usage as a summary making clear that they are sometimes considered to be part of the area but under official definitions, and according to wider issues such as representation, they are not included. Is this a sufficient framework for all?

[Inter alia: The above is constructive, and I agree with the framework. Iterator12n ^Talk 16:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC) ]

Secondly, on the issue of representation which is going back and fourth in the introduction. Iterator12n, you know perfectly well what I mean and that it is correct that they do not have representation on the governing council. Changing it to "inside" is clearly a clarification that it does not mean an ambassadorial position but if you still think it is not enough then fix it yourself according to the problems you see rather than simply declaring it to be fuzzy and removing the whole thing. I do not have the time chase after your whim all day so please try to contribute to sorting it a problem in it or state that you are against the sentence entirely, rather than acting like the latter and stating the former.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I get your drift. With the framework filled in I will try to come up with words that satisfy both our drifts. Now back to real work. Iterator12n ^Talk 16:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd still strongly oppose any rename. Eurozone is by far the commonest name for the euro area. Anyone refering to "eurozone inflation", cites statistics of the euro area. Renaming this article doesn't change the discussion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the other points mentioned?- _J.Logan`^t: 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If no one objects to this by tomorrow, I'll put it into action.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My draft for the new page is here, it includes the article Currencies related to the euro which will be merged in.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. International status and usage of the euro Please link in where you see relevant.- _J.Logan`^t: 23:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation

We couldn't change the name of this article to "eurozone" if we wanted to, but I'm wondering if we use the lower-case version in the article. Usage elsewhere appears to be mixed, but if euro is lower case, I think it makes sense to use lower case for cognate words like eurozone as well. Any takers? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it is interesting. I mean, logically as it is a noun and is not covered by guidelines like the actual word euro, one would think Eurozone. However as it is derivative of euro and not Europe and hence the same rules as euro would apply. One things is for sure and that is we need to be consistent. Does anyone have a solid argument for either? I think if now we should go for lowercase, to follow ECB rules. Their usage of euro area seems to indicate that at least follows lower case rules so eurozone probably would too.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

ECB rules on "euro" do not apply to "Eurozone". Like other currencies (pound, dollar, etc.) euro should not be capitalized. Like other proper nouns designating geopolitical entities (European union, United States, etc.) "Eurozone should be capitalized. If we wrote "euro zone" as two separate words, it could be argued that "zone" was being used as a common noun with its normal meaning (as with "euro area", where "area" has one of its normal meanings as a common noun).--Boson (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The UK is a kindgom, the word doesn't have a special meaning. Why should zone be a common noun but not states or kingdom? In "euro zone", euro is clearly the currency and we're unlikely to write "euro Zone" so we write "euro zone" or "Euro Zone". And since the currency isn't capitalised we go for "euro zone". In "eurozone" we just drop the space. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My point is that each word has to be judged on its own merits. The word "eurozone" did not exist until it was coined, in my opinion as a name (albeit unofficial), for the "geopolitical entity". When a concept is designated by a compound it is often possible to regard it as descriptive (using two common nouns) or as a name. Thus, one could talk about the respective presidents of the United States and Germany, one of whom, namely the President of the United States, is (the current) president of the United States. Simlarly the euro area is a particular area that is connected in a special way with the euro (euro being a common noun used attributively to indicate which area you are talking about). I am not saying that I would argue for "euro zone", merely that it is a possibility because "euro" could be parsed as an attributive noun, using two existing words descriptively rather than using a name. In the same way, a pub might be called "The Old Dun Cow" but it could not be referred to as "the old dun cow", because that would be a description, not a name. --Boson (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough I do see your point. We would write "the Lazio region" not "the Lazio Region". Nonetheless I'm not really sure euro zone really is a description. That we normally write it as one word, makes it a proper noun in my book. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A usage report

It's impossible to do case sensitive searches on Google, but this is my impression from the first few pages of results.

The BBC, the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Times, and the euObserver consistently use or recommend lowercase eurozone, (except at the beginning of sentences of course).

The Telegraph is split.

The Irish Times, RTE (Irish television service) and the International Herald Tribune are inconsistent but tend to use "euro zone". — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No common representation, governance or fiscal policy for the currency union?

The phrase "there is no common representation, governance or fiscal policy for the currency union" seems misleading, given that the 16 official members of the Eurozone are all part of the EU, which clearly has common governance and fiscal policy. (I'm not sure what the difference is between representation and governance in this context.)

The 16 members of the Eurozone are all represented in the ECB for monetary policy matters, as mentioned in the article. For other matters including fiscal policy (e.g. national borrowing limits) EU institutions such as the European Parliament and European Commission clearly have an influence on Eurozone members' policies, and these policies (especially borrowing limits) do have the effect of stabilising the euro currency, and are therefore relevant. Robertbyrne (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Economy

The section Economy shows the eurozone having larger imports and exports than the EU. This could possibly be the case if EU figures exclude intra-EU trade, but eurozone figures include trade with non-eurozone EU members. The hitch is that the current phrasing imply an overall exclusion of intra-EU trade.

Either this formulation is misleading, and needs a clarification; or the figures are wrong in the first place. 88.77.149.11 (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The information is both wrong and old. The original author just pasted from some 2007 news article. The following is better data source.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/national_accounts/data/main_tables —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.103.76 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Should be renamed to Euro area

This article should be renamed to "euro area" because as noted in the first sentence the "eurozone" is an unofficial term. It is not very rational that the article is titled after an unofficial term.

156.10.31.101 (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See previous discussion at Talk:Euro area#Title: Euro Area vs Eurozone vs Euro zone--Boson (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The above link is broken. Can someone provide a permalink? I am particularly interested in the rationale for eliminating the space (eurozone vs. euro zone), since I have never seen it that way in print. --Couchand (as 68.194.48.202 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC).

It is now archived at Talk:Eurozone/Archive 2#Title: Euro Area vs Eurozone vs Euro zone.--Boson (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A short note - you may be correct that the official term is "euro area," but here at wikipedia we generally go by what is common usage. For example, the article on the United Kingdom is not titled "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" even though that is the official name of the country, it is "United Kingdom" as that is the consensus common-use name of said country. In a similar vein, the name of the president of the United States is, officially, Barack Hussein Obama II, yet the article is titled "Barack Obama," as that is what he is most commonly known as. In those cases, as in this article, the official name or title, and the most commonly used terms, are included in the lede. Canada Jack (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

See move request, below. --Boson (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Maps

I think it is a tad mad we have two maps. Yes we should have a current and an enlargement map but both seem to be talking about enlargement but not very well. I suggest either we have one with these categories;

• Eurozone

---

• Non-EU Issuing rights
• Other non-EU users
• Non-EU pegged

---

• ERM
• EU pegged

---

• Obliged
• Opt-out (legal and de facto)

or two with these; 1

• Eurozone
• Non-EU issuing rights
• Other non-EU users
• Pegged currencies (ERM and others, EU and non EU)

2

• Eurozone
• ERM
• EU pegged
• Obliged
• Opt-out (legal and de facto)

Thoughts?- _J.Logan`^t: 20:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Split out table of interest rates

Article would benefit from moving the table of interest rates into a separate article ? Rod57 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Why?- _J.Logan`^t: 23:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Greece qualified?

AFAIK Greece never qualified, they cheated their way into eurozone.--78.49.84.100 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, a country qualifies if, and only if, the people deciding on eurozone entry decides that the country qualifies. These people did decide that Greece qualified, although they used inaccurate sources for this decision. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

Northern Cyprus is not in eurozone

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is not in eurozone. We are using Turkish Lira in TRNC. Maverick16 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the article states as such. If you are referring to the map in the infobox that is because that map is based on the legal situation; TRNC is not recognised by the EU so legally the euro is legal tender there, but the article makes clear that is not the case practically. See the table.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that your statement is correct? I can think of two applicable EU rules:

• According to one rule, the euro is the currency of all parts of the island of Cyprus.
• According to another rule, all EU rules are suspended in the parts of the island of Cyprus not controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus.

Based on rule two, I would say that rule one is suspended in the TRNC, thereby not making the euro de jure official (according to EU rules) in that part of Cyprus. Of course, the Turkish lira is the de facto official currency (and also de jure official according to TRNC's own rules). (130.237.223.111 (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

agreed; and I think it is also the general understanding shown in the figures 2 and 3. Only File:Eurozone.svg does not have it. Might be good to change it at some point; I will suggest so to the most recent figure-editor of this figure to this... L.tak (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

EU rules are not formally suspended, they are merely unenforced due to the current situation. They cannot be formally suspended or any other situation de jure considered as the TRNC is not recognised by the EU. Ergo from a legal point of view the TRNC does not exist and the whole area is within the EU and the eurozone. That is the formal and legal situation.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Denmark Estonia

Why is Denmark still in red as if the referendum were to take place sometime soon? The reference to the referendum should never have been there, since no referendum had been scheduled. The way things are going, no referendum will take place in a long time. We have to deal with facts, not with guessing games. Also, Estonia shouldn't be marked on the main map until a final accession agreement is made. Even then, it should be on the Enlargement article, not on the Eurozone one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyhoser (talk • contribs) 15:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Denmark is in red as we don't know when the referendum would take place or the result so they are still as an opt-out. Yet we mention it as the intention has been announced and it is important for showing the different political situations in each country. As for Estonia, we do know that in all likely hood they will join in 2011. We are not saying they defiantly will, but we are marking them out as it is useful data to present to the reader.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Eurozone territory

According to my calculations, the territory of the 16 current members (without colonies and such) sums up to 2570317 km2. Now, this seems interesting to me, but is it of any relevance to the article? This is the territory on which the currency is being used as an official currency. Actually, I was just looking at 1 E+12 m² and thought, "now where could the Eurozone be in here?" --Mátyás (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

GDP (PPP)

GDP (PPP) €8.4 trillion[2]

What does PPP mean here? Eurozone PPP euros would be the same as normal euros, wouldn't it? If you take the GDP of the eurozone and adjust the euro amount by comparing prices in the eurozone with prices in the eurozone, I can't figure out how you could possibly end up getting a different amount of euros than you had from the beginning. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC))

Good point. I imagine the figure quoted was previously in dollars. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The United States list both the nominal GDP and the PPP GDP using the same figure in US dollars. The logic here would be to do the same thing in euro. But as far as linking is concerned, we've no euro GDP lists to links to. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

missing in the late 2000s reform section

Related institutional developments are the establishment/changes to:

• European Securities and Markets Authority (Paris)
• European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (Frankfurt)
• European Banking Authority (London)
• Euratom Supply Agency (Luxembourg) [7]

See also here.

Related to the European Financial Stability Facility is the similar Greek EU/IMF facility - see here. Alinor (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Add Switzerland to countries with pegged currency to Euro.

(Self-explanatory, the Swiss have tied the Franc recently) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michal Lehuta (talk • contribs) 13:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not quite the case, Switzerland merely has a cap on its exchange rate. It just won't allow it to exceed 1.20, if it drops below that figure then the Swiss Central Bank won't intervene.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was: Do not move. Unanimously opposed. Withdrawn and closed by nominator per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions

---

Eurozone → Euro area – "Euro area" is the commonly used name in encyclopaedias, books, journals, official documents, etc. Its membership is authoritatively defined. --Boson (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Evidence

Google is only a rough guide, of course, but I get the following hits

• at Google Books:
  • 32,200 +"eurozone"
  • 44,100 +"euro zone" (including "euro-zone")
  • 102,000 +"euro area"
• at Google Scholar (at least summaries, no patents)
  • 16,700 +"eurozone"
  • 17,800 +"euro zone" (including "euro-zone")
  • 40,800 +"euro area"

Both favour "euro area" by a wide margin.

Official usage is also "euro area". See the EU Interinstitutional Style Guide:

:"The term ‘euro area’ is the official term for the group of countries that have adopted the euro as their single currency. All other terms, such as ‘euroland’ and ‘euro zone’, should be avoided. "

European Union institutions are an authoritative source for membership of the euro area, but there are no equivalent authoritative sources defining membership of the "Eurozone" or "eurozone" or "euro zone" or "euro-zone.

News sources (possibly including non-reliable ones) seem to prefer combinations with "zone" but, in my opinion, this is journalese; it is my impression that some, at least, tend to use "euro area" when being more serious and "euro zone"/"eurozone" when being "chatty" or "snappy", or when the term is being or has been used in a headline (e.g. "EU leaders vow to fight contagion in the euro zone", as opposed to "European banks need the official help because the American money-market funds, on which they rely heavily to finance their dollar lending, have taken fright as the euro area’s sovereign-debt crisis has worsened . . ." [both from The Economist). --Boson (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinions

Support as proposer. --Boson (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn.--Boson (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Your searches notwithstanding, I believe "euro zone" is more familiar than "euro area." I work for one of the largest media outlets in Canada, the CBC, and here "euro area" doesn't even make the style guide. Here is the entry on usage: euro, euros (European Community currency); Eurodollar (no hyphen), eurozone (lowercase and fused).The official name for the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, yet we don't go with the "official" name on its page. The same should apply here. Canada Jack (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I am not proposing "euro area" because it is the official term per se. However, perhaps because it is the official term, it is formal and precise, making it more suitable (and in fact more common) where formality and precision are appropriate, as in encyclopaedias and other books. In that respect, it is more like preferring "United Kingdom" to "UK" (less formal) and "Britain (less precise), even if journalists prefer the shorter terms. One problem with "Eurozone" (partly because it is not the official term) is that is less clearly defined: it is unclear whether it includes all territories that use the euro or only those 17 states officially listed as comprising the euro area). --Boson (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But "United Kingdom" is not the official name of the state, "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is. If your example was to hold, we'd expect the long, formal form of the name there. But we don't. Canada Jack (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Further, a quick look at the New York Times website reveals a near-exclusive use of the term "Euro Zone", mirrored by myriad other news sources. The main style issue, it would seem, is whether to have "euro zone" as one or two words, and whether to cap "euro." Canada Jack (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that is a more interesting point. I punt for Eurozone as I see them joined far more than separate and although euro has to be lowercase, Eurozone is a proper noun in its own right.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Seconded, Eurozone is far more familiar. You read the FT or watch a press conference and the term "eurozone" is far more common. You always have references to the "eurozone economy" and currency boards, if they don't say euro or EU, will say Eurozone before euro area. It would also create inconsistency: pretty much all references on Wikipedia are for Eurozone, but the article would be renamed something else. That would add to confusion which, on EU topics, is something we have enough of already. Maybe if we were starting out on scratch there would be an argument to be had but to be honest, I don't think it would be accurate or helpful to rename.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose based on my limited visibility. I don't know what it is, but BBC America uses eurozone a lot. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Euro area? never 'eard of it. Eurozone is pervasive. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I would have to suggest that newspapers, rather than academic journals or text books, give a better impression of what constitutes English usage. On Google News I get 3,640 results for "euro area", 24,300 results for eurozone and 17,300 results for "euro zone". This numbers speak for themselves. As far as precision is concerned, I do see your point but it can be gotten over by describing places as being "informally" part of the eurozone and I don't think this is such a bad solution. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 11:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Completing : Comparison table

Would it be possible to add other large economies to the comparison table for example : China, India, Brazil, Russia? I have no clue were to find the information. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.149.129 (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Likely vandalism

Someone made an edit for Ireland which looks like vandalism to me, so I undid the revision. It looks as if the editor has his own interpretations of the borders of the Republic of Ireland. I'm sorry if I undid something which was supposed to be there. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is vandalism and you're quite right to revert. Northern Ireland is not in dispute since the Good Friday Agreement between the UK and the Republic.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankfurt Group

I wonder if anyone could work out what to do with the existing Frankfurt Group page? The term has taken on a new meaning eg [8] [9] --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added Frankfurt Group (disambiguation) but don't feel qualified to create an article. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

potential Germany resource

Why Germany's success doesn't extend to other Eurozone countries "Trade and economic interaction happens with countries outside of the Eurozone as well." by Stefan Karlsson in Christian Science Monitor December 8, 2011 99.181.141.143 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Adoption Rank

What does the Adoption Rank give in the member states table? I can't see what extra it gives over and above the joining dates.

Spudgfsh (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Map Incomplete II

• The independent EU country Malta is not on the current map.
• Andorra is not shown in the same colours as Kosovo and Montenegro.
• Countries which have concluded formal agreements with the EU should have a third colour.

Agerskov (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Table Data

Not sure if a 2009 world bank page is the best source for data about the Eurozone GDP etc anymore. Would using something like this be better? http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tec00001&plugin=1 24.134.154.28 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

SPAIN AND NETHERLANDS AMONG THE TOP 20 ECONOMIES Even if neither Spain nor the Netherlands are member states of the "G-20 Group", both are among the Top 20 World eocnomies. Spain is nº 13th and Netherlands is nº 18th. Read in Wikipedia the "List of countries by GDP (Nominal".--88.1.244.26 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Map Incomplete

As Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union states,

• Réunion
• French Guiana
• Martinique
• Guadeloupe
• Saint Barthélemy
• Saint Martin
• Mayotte Minimal
• Saint Pierre and Miquelon
• French Southern and Antarctic Lands
• Azores
• Madeira
• Canary Islands
• Akrotiri and Dhekelia

all uses euro and perhaps should be included in the map. ibicdlcod (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think this would make the main map overly busy, but I wouldn't be opposed to a new section/map showing which overseas territories use the Euro. TDL (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There are 3 maps in the article which are mostly similar. Is there really a need of having all these maps? I think it is more clear for the readers when all the data is shown in one map. --Dima1 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Euler diagram, Vatican, Schengen

The Euler diagram has the Vatican outside the Schengen area — despite being de facto a member, according to Schengen Area — but has Lichtenstein inside me — despite not even being mentioned in Schengen Area. This seems inconsistent. JDAWiseman (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This would probably be better discussed at Template:Supranational European Bodies, but to answer your question Liechtenstein is listed at Schengen Area#Membership. It has ratified an association agreement to implement the provisions of the Schengen Agreement, just like Iceland/Norway/Switzerland. The Vatican City, conversely, has no such agreement, and just doesn't perform border checks, similar to San Marino. TDL (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I’m sorry. I must have mistyped Liechtenstein into ⌘F and hence failed to notice it. Apologies. JDAWiseman (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Bailout Provisions - Sentence needs to be made up-to-date

The following sentence in the "Bailout Provisions" section was apparently written a few years ago. It should be updated if applicable to go beyond 2013.

"If both are successfully ratified according to schedule, the ESM would be operational by the time the EFSF/EFSM expire in mid-2013."

208.95.51.82 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Eurozone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327080406/http://eur-lex.europa.eu:80/en/treaties/dat/12007L/htm/C2007306EN.01004201.htm to http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12007L/htm/C2007306EN.01004201.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101224032151/http://www.oecd.org:80/document/61/0,3343,en_2649_34573_2483901_1_1_1_1,00.html to http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,3343,en_2649_34573_2483901_1_1_1_1,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No

"The outcome of leaving the euro would vary depending on the situation. If the country's own replacement currency was expected to devalue against the euro, the state might experience a large-scale exodus of money, whereas if the currency were expected to appreciate then more money would flow into the economy. A rapidly appreciating currency would be detrimental to the country's exports.["

Not really.

You can’t have classic capital flight in a floating rate system. It is a meaningless concept.

The resources, land and labour remain in the Greece.

All you have is some people selling and other people buying. Those that are buying may or may not be getting a bargain and those that are selling may or may not be losing money – and they might run out of market liquidity before they can sell at all.

So what you get is a price change and a redistribution based upon that. And if some entities permanently ‘leave’ a currency area then the currency area shrinks – potentially within the political boundaries of the state issuing the currency (which is what dollarisation is).

The problem as I see it is that we have a floating rate system being managed and regulated by control points and notions that were designed for fixed exchange rate structures. The containment system is still stuck in a Bretton Woods mindset and the traders who actually understand what is going on are able to run rings around them.

But nobody seems to want to discuss the issue. Instead they retreat to their religious texts and hide behind aggregations and assumptions.

The economists fail to see the difference between ‘conversion’ and exchange. In conversion the supply of the liability shrinks. So the Bristol pound is deleted when the UK pound is issued. The UK pound is deleted when the pound of sterling silver is issued in a metallic system. The Barclays bank deposit is deleted when the £20 note is drawn from the ATM. That is what conversion is.

Exchange is different. There is no deletion. When you exchange USD for GBP at the desk, the USD stays in circulation. It becomes the assets of the desk.

That’s why the price floats, because the quantity is fixed. If the price stays the same the quantity has to adjust.

The problem is *always* foreign central banks trying to make domestic entities whole in foreign currencies. Don't do that. Make it very clear if you take a foreign currency loan, the CB will let you fail.

Current account balances and capital flight are really fixed exchange rate ideas. They have a different effect in a floating rate system and I’m not sure we’re really clear what that is.

Currency markets are very simple. It's raw supply and demand. There are no market makers and every open trade has to be settled with delivery of the currency at 10pm GMT every day.

That means you have to get hold of the real thing and give it to somebody else or get out of the market. So the actual final liquidity in the market that allows things to move comes from people actually changing what they hold over a daily basis. Those playing Contracts for Differences and throwing 'forward next' are just greasing the daily wheels with liquidity. Overall net short positions from an aggregator still have to be delivered.

90.211.24.76 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

that's a nice story, that I don't fully grasp. Could you elaborate what change you suggest to the paragraph you mention, and show us some sources that would back that change up? L.tak (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Eurozone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070826141401/http://www.europeanfoundation.org:80/docs/117id.htm to http://www.europeanfoundation.org/docs/117id.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081210203907/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/2007/01/01/business/euro.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/01/business/euro.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151208163319/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/51/2483816.xls to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/51/2483816.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Historical numbers from Eurostat for public debt

I have updated the Eurostat-sourced Public debt numbers from this table.

In the process I found that the 2011 figures that we had from the Eurostat Key Figures on Europe 2012 document no longer match the figures for 2011 in the current table. (See this edit for the two sets of figures presented as side-by-side columns).

I'm not exactly sure why the figures have been revised (and the expert I talked to here at the FullFact editathon event couldn't immediately come up with anything either), but as the equivalent table in the Key Figures on Europe 2015 does match the 2015 column in the Eurostat historical table, it seems that the two columns do not reflect any difference in basis; so the difference is presumably down to statistical revision.

I have therefore changed all the Eurostat columns to match Eurostat's current historical data (as of May 2016). Be aware, though, that this may not match the data that may have been current when particular political decisions were taken. Jheald (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eurozone. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110717135636/http://www.fedtrust.co.uk/admin/uploads/FedT_Economic_Government.pdf to http://www.fedtrust.co.uk/admin/uploads/FedT_Economic_Government.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0201:0328:EN:PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

these areas do not forget

Please do not forget the special gebitte at moneytraray accmen this to write down. (Without their own euro coins) French Guiana Guadeloupen Martinique mayotte Saint-Barthélemy Saint-pierre and Miquelon reunion Madeira Canaries Azores

"Passive" Euro users: (Without their own euro coins)

Kosovo Montenegro

Euro as by currency:

Lichtenstein Seychelles Zimbabwe Northern Ireland Gribralta On the border with Poland and Denmark

Euro except:

Aland Islands Büssingen at home listening Helgoland Capione di Italio Melila Ceuta

but I live in Germany and am a Euro expert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.193.84 (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Eurozone. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130822005234/http://www.andorra-euro.com/en/news1.html to http://www.andorra-euro.com/en/news1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.ATLS.CD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407084222/http://www.centralbank.an/faq to http://www.centralbank.an/faq
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0%2C3343%2Cen_2649_34573_2483901_1_1_1_1%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Clicky Map

Austria

Belgium

Croatia

Cyprus

Finland

Estonia

France

Greece

Germany

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Portugal

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Andorra

Monaco

San Marino

Vatican City

Kos

Mont.

  Eurozone members (20)

  Monetary agreement (4)

  Unilaterally adopted (2)

I've always felt the clicky map at the top of this article has the wrong focus. It focuses on the Eurozone itself, but the map shows the Eurozone as one entity and focuses on the relations to other countries (which is more the focus of the Enlargement article). I've knocked up the map to the right (image might need improving) that focuses only on the three types of Euro users only (i.e. the definition of the Eurozone at its broadest, and leaves mention of other countries to maps further down). I'd suggest this go in place of the current map at the top, and the current map be moved down to the enlargement subsection if it is still needed in this article (but again, it is more about the enlargement article if anything).

As the current map has been there for ages, thought I'd check if anyone had any problems with that first. - _J.Logan`^t: 12:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Have switched with new map, feel free to revert if you wan't to discuss the basis of the idea, otherwise I'm sure there are improvements. But as we're talking about the Eurozone, it ought to show who is in it rather than focus on details of who is outside it.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why is Eurozone not capitalized in this article? It is a proper noun, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.34.226.25 (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Flags

Why do you keep deleting country flags? BIL did tell, they are useless. Maybe cos he doesn't know them? But for many people they are much better than just plain text (as symbols are). Others have given the reason as WP:FLAGCRUFT - Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. But thats not the case. Country name and its flag are equal. No emphasizing of anything one way or another. Practically the same thing.

Look at other articles around wiki. All have flags linked with country names, especially in tables and lists. And it's just the right way to do it. Without one or other, the article would became less readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blc17 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

GDP (PPP)

Would be nice if someone could insert GDP (PPP) like with all country articles and European Union article. I've added it up for you from the individual country pages, it's 19.2 trio. PPP $.

77.185.74.254 (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Croatia on the map

Please, can you move name Croatia a little bit on the left. Right next to Slovenia.

Happy New Year. 2A05:4F46:514:2800:2045:EC8A:8441:C8B7 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)