Hacker News Reader

Comment by matthewmorgan | Hacker News Reader

Got to love the anachronistic use of euros. No doubt any attempt to correct it would be rapidly suppressed

> No doubt any attempt to correct it would be rapidly suppressed

Wikipedia has consistent style rules around usage/conversion of currencies[1][2], so yes your edit would probably be swiftly reverted if it didn't follow those.

I'm not really sure why you're using such a conspiratorial tone.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Date...

[2] (From above page) "For obsolete currencies, provide an equivalent (formatted as a conversion) if possible, in the modern replacement currency (e.g. decimal pounds for historical pre-decimal pounds-and-shillings), or a US-dollar equivalent where there is no modern equivalent."

How come? It gives modern context to the amount lost, in the currency that country now uses. Surely as long as you follow the conversion rates between currencies when they changed, then it's possible to provide an approximate current value in a relatable currency. The confusing bit for me is "equivalent to £5.45 million in 2019" as it is not clear why it would be a value in £, being in Euro using Ireland (and pedantically if it means Irish or British pounds).

I would lean toward the £ means sterling, as Ireland used that from 1868 - 1928, the period in question (and the punt was de-facto pegged to it until the 70s).

That would also have to be inflation adjusted and would be pretty meaningless to as a value to people in Dublin. And then it would more or less only be understood without further calculation by UK inhabitants.

The Pound of today is pretty much a different currency to the 19th century

> would be pretty meaningless to as a value to people in Dublin

Utter horseshite, that's like saying a Canadian along the border would be clueless as to CAD-USD conversion rates. The UK is our next door neighbour. It's common enough to buy goods up north, online from the UK, and to travel there. We can generally do a rough conversion in our heads; the same goes for USD nowadays due to the prevalence of online shopping (and the fact that its now at near parity with EUR helps).

> The Pound of today is pretty much a different currency to the 19th century

True of any currency. You may as well argue that any measurement in an inflation adjusted currency is nonsense if you're going to go down that route.

Given that the Sterling was in use then and now, I'd argue that the most meaningful way to calculate value would be to adjust the value for the inflation of Pounds Sterling. That can then be converted as appropriate to euros for convenience (as it seems to have been in the first paragraph of this article).

What's anachronistic about converting in a modern encyclopedia the currency of the time to the modern currency of that very country? It is also adjusted for inflation.

Yeah, you can't exactly adjust a no longer used currency for inflation - it makes sense to me.

The pound is still with us, however I agree using the Euro makes more sense.

You'd prefer it in (checks internets) Pounds, Shillings and Pence? OK, but not very useful to the rest of us.

Pre-decimal pounds, shillings and pence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/£sd), with a few guineas (21 shillings, while a pound was 20 shillings) thrown in for fun.

That would make sure nobody alive would understand it.

I read somewhere that internationally-oriented auction houses ask & take bids in guineas so that bidders based in _all_ currencies are equally inconvenienced, and none is favored.

Wiki articles are written for easy and accessible comprehension; if you want to know more about the specific currency and amount used at the time, read the sources.

I for one can't be bothered to read the sources and will just take in the factoid as-is and move on.

Glad it wasn’t just me who found that a bit odd. But I live just across the water, so I understand why…

Reply on news.ycombinator.com