Talk:Croatian kuna

ratio

The value of the first kuna in lire and Reichsmark is useful but oughtn't the succession box show the ratio to the Yugoslav dinar?
Dove1950 21:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My source (Global Financial Data) only listed the German and Italian rates. I assume this is because it was a puppet state, relatively unrelated to the previous Yugoslavia, and closely associated with Germany and Italy. If you have access to the conversion rate though, please add it. Ingrid 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I just added a picture of a 10 kuna note. I was wondering about the reason why there was no one uploaded. I am now concerned that there may be some copyright issues? I took the photo myself but I obviously do not own the copyright of the actual banknote. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

name controversy

Someone re-edited the name controversy section in Croatian government POV. Re-worded it again. Most Croatian citizens who considered themselves anti-fascists had big reservations about the name. The historical facts the government used were little known and sounded like a very thin excuse to most who kept a clear head about nationalism - which, during the war, was admittedly difficult to do. Miranche 00:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

NDH kuna

IMHO the kuna/banica details don't belong in the article about the modern-day kuna/lipa currency, because it is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Undue weight. Shall we move it to e.g. Croatian kuna (Independent State of Croatia)? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed. It's just that there really isn't a precedent for naming currency articles with bracketed qualifiers. For example, there have been four Polish złoty currencies, and no less than eight (!) Yugoslav dinars, and they're all grouped together into single articles. Perhaps Independent State of Croatia kuna would be a more streamlined title? Also, such a movement should probably also include a similar splitting of the Slovak koruna into two articles for consistency.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It would make sense to me to have the same article describe two currencies if there is continuity, i.e. they are consecutive, and there's a known exchange rate. If there are gaps in the history that break continuity, the parts can be split into different articles. In the listed examples, there do exist some gaps - Polish złoty: 1850-1924, Yugoslav dinar: 1941-1944, Croatian kuna: 1945-1994, Slovak koruna: 1945-1993.

I believe this would be consistent with the general policy - if topics have no actual concrete link other than their name, they are meant for Wikipedia:Disambiguation. They could be a target for Wikipedia:Merging, for which the criteria are: duplication, overlap, lack of text, context. The first two requirements are not met in case of these gaps. I haven't seen a lack of text in any of the listed cases. Only context is a contentious issue - in case of kuna it goes one way (not splitting off the older one gives it undue weight), and in case of zloty it goes the other way (splitting off the oldest one might give it undue weight). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Serbian Krajina dinar at the bottom-of-the-article box

Must be deleted as it does not belong (and never has) to a official currency of Croatia. On the other hand, this currency was not merged with kuna and no one could convert this dinar to kuna. Serbian Krajina was not a state, didn't enjoy recognision of any state in the world.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have amended the succession box. One could argue that there was technically succession, but in this case it was a competing issue (well, two sets of authorities were competing for the same territory at least), there was no exchange rate, and the other issue was mostly unrecognized worldwide, so I'm going to lean on the side that including it in the succession box is giving it undue weight. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Latin

While it may be in latin it is actually the scientific name for the species. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What the heck?

Every day wikipedia is disappointing me even more. Yet another article if full of POV. I am wrong or someone is trying to portrait Croatia as modern state who still uses fascist symbols? Nobody cares about frustration and complexes of the Serbian ultra nationalist. This article is supposed to be about Croatian currency, not Greater-Serbian wet dream. I am editing this, though I don't know why I bother anymore, because (probably) it will be edited back in the matter of seconds... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.110.56 (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing the unsourced controversy paragraph is fine per Wikipedia:Verifiability. If we can't reliably attribute those statements to anyone, it might be giving the issue undue weight.

However, I saw no reason to remove references to the illegitimacy of NDH or the more current reference to the parallel Krajina dinar. Those two are true and pertinent, please don't censor apparently valid information whose mention isn't really controversial per se. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Denomination "2 kuna, 2 kune, 5 kuna"

I change the denomination from "2 kuna" to "2 kune" : this is what you can read on a coin. I don't know why the denomination is "2 kune" while exists a "5 kuna" coin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.122.135 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 September 2010

That's because of the Croatian language practice of having a dual grammatical number. The singular of kuna is (jedna) kuna, the dual is (dvije) kune, three is (tri) kune (but no single coin), four is (četiri) kune (ditto), five is (pet) kuna, and onwards the plural is kuna, except when the number ends in 2, 3 or 4. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on this article

This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note:

• The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use.
• Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible.
• If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)