Talk:Local currency

Numismatics Mid‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Link to Ora is wrong

The link to the South African Ora currency is wrong - it leads to the page of a political party in Kosovo. I couldn't find a page on the Ora in Wikipedia. However here is a photo of this currency: http://le.org.nz/tiki-index.php?page=ccGalleryA04#orania

Nova Roma

Don't know where this fits here, but the virtual state of Nova Roma has produced real coins of value 0.50 USD: http://www.novaroma.org/wiki/Coin_%28Nova_Roma%29 - Zwiebeltuete 2006-09-07 0:00 UTC

Merge proposal

There's a 2019 merge proposal to merge Community currency to here. That seems reasonable, as that page seems to focus on the modern tendencies for local currency's to develop, and this would benefit from the broader historical context present here. Klbrain (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks like an accidental fork. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Tóth, Balázs. (2011). The Function of Local Currencies in Local Economic Development. a reliable source?

CapnZapp added this source as a second citation. I reverted, saying probable good faith but Worldcat doesn't have any record of that book, so it may not be sufficiently notable. CapnZapp reinstated, saying huh? notability revolves around article topics, not sources. That of course is true, notability is irrelevant, what I should have written was "may not be a sufficiently reliable source".

So what is it? A book? A journal article? Publisher? doi? isbn? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your objection makes sense now. But I have to ask - have you made even a cursory google? I found this at ResearchGate and copied the suggested citation data. There were several google hits. If you can add more details (i.e. the ones you find separates a sufficiently reliable source from... others) I thank you. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well strictly the WP:onus was on you to provide that info when you cited it in the first place. The doc page at {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} will tell you what you need to imclude. Intending to just fix it and move on, I went to WorldCat, which is not perfect but has most of what is important. If is not there, suspicions must arise. So I couldn't fix it No doubt yo can repair the citation and end the doubt. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

okay, several things to untangle here. First, WP:ONUS discusses article facts, not their sources. (Hint: the preceding section, starting at WP:QS is where sources are discussed.) The cite template doc pages aren't policy and don't dictate what's needed. In fact, those templates may be recommended but they are not required. A WorldCat inclusion is definitely not needed. Are you sure you looked beyond WorldCat before you concluded you couldn't fix it? More to the point: do not revert inclusions just because you suspect them. Either you want to assert the reference is a bad one, or please assume good faith and allow it. Please keep in mind that reverting the works of others just because you have a hunch, and/or can't be bothered to do a more thorough check, is not the definition of good faith.

Anyway, do remember: I added this source as a third one. I added this third one because I found the two existing ones to be of mediocre quality. Perhaps not of removably low quality (and I did not remove them), but certainly I expected the addition of a third source to be welcomed, not challenged. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]