Talk:AFN
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Jusjih in topic AFN
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Except maybe for the common ones like USD and EUR, I think these fall under the same rule as language codes and should only appear in an appendix. -- Prince Kassad 19:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're calling common. I suspect most can be found in use in regional periodicals. I know NIS can. As for the nominee (AFN), keep and RFV if desired (after checking for cites first, natch).—msh210℠ (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this, and any others that get nominated. (It's verified by looking at the ISO 4217 Currency Code List). But there is no reason to have a separate appendix, nor should we just list the common ones. Common to who?.--Dmol 21:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- A standards body mandating a term does not automatically make it language, as discussed before with the "standard" (but not even attestable!) units like yottasecond. However, in the case of these currency codes, I'm sure they are all very attestable indeed. Send to RFV for citations to prove it? Equinox ◑ 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd have thought that a standards document's tabular listing of a code constitutes a mention not a use. OTOH, I would expect almost all of these to be in use in a few languages and thus be as Translingual as all of the attested-in-no-language taxonomic names that we include unchallenged. I don't know what kind of attestation would be sufficient to protect us from becoming mere claques for unused standards. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Kept for no consensus to delete. As long as there is no copyright concern, we can probably add other language-independent codes.--Jusjih 08:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd have thought that a standards document's tabular listing of a code constitutes a mention not a use. OTOH, I would expect almost all of these to be in use in a few languages and thus be as Translingual as all of the attested-in-no-language taxonomic names that we include unchallenged. I don't know what kind of attestation would be sufficient to protect us from becoming mere claques for unused standards. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- A standards body mandating a term does not automatically make it language, as discussed before with the "standard" (but not even attestable!) units like yottasecond. However, in the case of these currency codes, I'm sure they are all very attestable indeed. Send to RFV for citations to prove it? Equinox ◑ 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this, and any others that get nominated. (It's verified by looking at the ISO 4217 Currency Code List). But there is no reason to have a separate appendix, nor should we just list the common ones. Common to who?.--Dmol 21:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)