Talk:German mark (1871)

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

Fair use rationale for Image:1908-2-7-100large.jpg[edit]

Image:1908-2-7-100large.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What Currency Was Used During the First World War?[edit]

The article implies that the goldmark was not used after 1914. That is the year in which the First World War began, but the German Empire did not collapse until November, 1918. What currency did the German government use during the war? John Paul Parks (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the chart below the article explains, the Papermark. I'm not sure how legitimate that division is, though. Germany probably just suspended conversion, effectively turning "gold-backed" money into fiat currency, without changing the name. Indeed, in German, the currency's name remained "mark." 114.91.67.223 (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capitalisation?[edit]

Although the German language uses capitals for nouns ('die Mark'), English doesn't ('the pound', 'the dollar') and I feel that 'the mark' should be used throughout this article. >MinorProphet (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name: when[edit]

"The name Goldmark was created later" Late? When later? 1920? 1945? 1960? There has to be a concrete year… and *WHO* coined (hah) that name? I come here for encyclopaedic knowledge, not to hunt for info like this myself, _sheesh_ --jae (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 18 October 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

German gold mark → Gold Mark – The currency is the clear primary topic, both in terms of long term significance, and in terms of usage, receiving more views that all the alternatives put together. Further, "gold mark" is incorrect; it is used as a singular, proper noun and so even if the consensus is against it being considered primary it should be moved to "German Goldmark" or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 01:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: The previous format of this request was...
The strikeouts alerted the RMCD bot to list this request as malformed, so the proposal had to be adjusted. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 05:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update: I've struck the last bit of my proposal; while the currency is referred to as the "Goldmark" in our current, and even defined as a proper noun, it is done so without sources, and a review of sources show very little use of "goldmark" as a single word, and no use as a proper noun. As such, that aspect of the proposal has been struck, and instead I simply propose we remove the unnecessary disambiguation and move the article to Gold Mark. My belief about correcting the level of distinction between "gold Mark" and "Papiermark" (see below) has also been strengthened, and I wonder if we should actually merge the two articles, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think we need a RM for that, this seems like a fairly uncontroversial move since it just removes an unnecessary prefix. In the long run, it might be a good idea to merge this article with the Papiermark one to a single Mark (German Empire) article, since the Mark described in those articles was abolished in 1924 and replaced first by the Rentenmark and then by the Reichsmark. Regards SoWhy 10:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Its not uncontroversial. Despite change in RM, I'd still oppose the simple "Gold Mark". "German" is a useful disambiguator. There are other "mark" currencies (most famously the Cologne mark, various other Hanseatic marks, as well as the "mark" used as a currency measure in all the "thaler" states, mostly in northern Germany, e.g. Prussia, Hesse, Electoral Saxony, Royal Saxony, the Thuringian Saxes, etc.). Moreover, "mark" was also used (until recently) as an accounting measure for gold and silver in Great Britain, France and other states in Europe (very poor article here mark (unit)). Finally, it resembles "hallmark" too closely (the maker's stamp on gold & silver metalwork) which may be what many readers will assume "gold mark" refers to. "German" is a useful disambiguation. Although personally I would be inclined SoWhy's proposal for Mark (German empire), covering the entire period of 1871 (its formal introduction, even if other currencies were allowed to circulate alongside it until 1873) up to the Reichsmark in 1924 (its formal withdrawal, the Rentenmark of 1923-24 was just a supplementary note, and not legal tender). So this would include the "Papiermark" with in this article (which is just an informal name for the Mark in paper form - it was never a formal name), but might nonetheless leave the "Papiermark" article as a subordinate specialized article. Walrasiad (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note that I've also moved Papiermark; your reasoning here might apply there, so I thought I would let you know in case you want to contest it. BilledMammal (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moved? Or proposing to move? I don't see an RM there. If you mean merging "Papiermark" with this article (as you insinuate above), I am not sure. There's enough details (text & images) on the "Papiermark" page that it might overwhelm this article in a merge. I'd recommend making it a specialized spin-off page rather than inserting the whole thing in here. I would support a summary paragraph about the "Papiermark" inside this article (with a section hatnote link to the more detailed "Papiermark" article). Walrasiad (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Boldly moved from "German Papiermark". BilledMammal (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not particularly objectionable. It's a foreign language term, less liable to be confused. Walrasiad (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated {{requested move}} to reflect modified move request Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose (as written): I don't understand why "Mark" is proposed to be capitalized. I think it should not be, just as United States dollar does not capitalize "dollar". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to German mark (1871) (or German mark (1871–1914) as second choice, based on the current scope of the article). Per discussion below, the term "Gold mark" is very rare in English literature, and it's anachronistic to boot (it's a term created after the currency was already off the gold standard). Note that the German Wikipedia article is simply at "Mark (1871)". I'm inclined to think that this article could use some general reorganization to be more off the German Wikipedia model - according to de, the Papiermark isn't printed until 1919, and it's the same "Mark" from 1871-1919 just with merely going off the gold standard in 1914. Going off the gold standard didn't change the actual currency notes though, so I find it questionable how Wikipedia considers that all the existing marks magically changed into a new currency in 1914 - note that the article on the US dollar doesn't split itself into separate currencies based on when the dollar was on the gold standard and when it wasn't. SnowFire (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. But I'd avoid using dates in the article title, since there is some iffiness on exactness (date it from when it is officially introduced or from when it is the sole currency? when does it end? Off the gold standard? What do you do in 1923 when it still officially circulates alongside Rentenmarks? etc.) Which is why I prefer simply "Mark (German empire)" and leave the exact dates unmentioned in the title. Details about dates and phases can be made in the article text. Walrasiad (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also support Mark (German Empire) (match capitalization on the German Empire article). SnowFire (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose as I don't understand the proposal as it has evolved. I recommend starting over with a fresh proposal, without over-capitalization, if there's something to be done here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

Goldmark vs. Papiermark[edit]

The article suggests that the Papiermark was a different currency from the Goldmark, but my reading suggests that they were both the same currency, the Mark, with the only difference being backing. Could someone with more knowledge on this topic clarify so that we can look at correcting the articles? Note that this issue extends beyond these two articles, with the currencies being listed separately on most lists. BilledMammal (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose. "Goldmark" is not a word commonly found in English-language sources. It was known simply as the "Mark", officially the "Reichswährung Mark" ("Reich-currency mark",to distinguish it from older mark coinage of the Hanseatic cities). You'll sometimes see it referred to as a "gold mark" (in a generic sense). But I can't find the term "goldmark" used in English sources. Walrasiad (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi Walrasiad, did you mean to put this in the move discussion above? I have one source referring to it as "goldmark" but reviewing further such references seem to be few and far between, and most do not distinguish between the "gold mark" and the "papier mark". As such, I think I would agree with you; I have updated the proposal accordingly. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops. yes. Although now that you've changed the RM proposal, not sure I should put it back up there. Walrasiad (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 31 October 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See below a solid consensus to rename this article; however, there is little agreement as to the best new title. So under WP:OTHEROPTIONS the choices are:

We shall rename this article German mark (1871). As OTHEROPTIONS guides us, "...the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, then instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request at any time, which will hopefully lead the article to its final stable title". Kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German gold mark → German mark (German Empire) – Or to German mark (1871). Per discussion in previous no-consensus RM, this article's scope should be the mark under the German Empire, similar to German Wikipedia, and it can discuss the move off of the gold standard within this article. "Gold mark" is an infrequent term only created in retrospect to clarify when the mark was on the gold standard, but it wasn't the name of the actual currency used. This distinction isn't seen on other articles - we don't have separate articles for the US Dollar under the gold standard & not under the gold standard. SnowFire (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Set your mind at ease. You've been here almost twenty years, so Udaman SF! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 02:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, with qualifications. "German mark (German empire)" uses the term "German" twice (redundant), so would prefer simply "Mark (German empire)". But I would not object to "German mark (1871)" either, if that finds more support. Walrasiad (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nom (prefer first option). I don't have an issue with the double "German" term and I'd be opposed to "Mark (German empire)" as it breaks consistency (see Category:Mark (currency)). Gonnym (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support moving, but I would oppose the proposed titles. "Mark" should be capitalized to be consistent with usage and Deutsche Mark, while stating "German" twice violates WP:CONCISE. "Mark (German Empire)" would be the best option, I believe, but "German Mark (1871)" is also acceptable. BilledMammal (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS, there's quite a lot of discussion at Talk:Deutsche Mark as to whether that article should be at Deutsche Mark, Deutsche mark, Deutschemark, German mark, German Mark or German Deutsche Mark, so I'm not sure that the capitalisation the article's landed on is a useful precedent. Guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style suggests currency units are generally not capitalised. Havelock Jones (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_mark_(1871)&oldid=1207395574"