Which date are these figures from? 91.208.174.15 (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2011‎

I have just updated the entire criteria template with a new set of economic stats. Titles and footnotes now clearly also explain the year for the data, and how the reference values and evaluation process works. The previous debt+deficit data in the template showed the criteria and values for Fiscal Year 2011, and the final evaluation of criteria compliance as of 30 March 2012. As these data and the evaluation results have been displayed and well-known for around 4 months, it was however more interesting now to let the table show a forecasted outlook for the next evaluation as of 31 March 2013. In order to ensure a continued availability for the old previous data, I have saved them into this new file: Template:Euro convergence criteria (April 2012).

For the current template version with new data, I have uploaded the most recent forecast values for HICP inflation, deficit and debt (as per the outlook for next evaluation time: 31 March 2013). These new forecast data were all easy to extract from the EC Spring Economic Forecast, and will be fast to extract and update again, when the EC Autumn Economic Forecast report gets published in November 2012. In regards of the average values for "Annual long term interest rates", the ECB source also publish numbers on a monthly basis (being relatively easy to extract and add). So it is now possible to update the table with new figures during the upcomming year, and thus follow if the outlook turns in a red or green direction halfways through (by November 2012). Just be careful to read and understand all the hidden notes. Danish Expert (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to keep the yearly assement data in some nicely saved templates, one of us should around October 2013 copy-edit the final data from this template, and save it in a new template named: Template:Euro convergence criteria (April 2013); to be displayed at the Euro convergence criteria article. Based on the experience with how the forecasted data developed in 2012, I have to admit there will be no point to create a new "forecasted convergence table" for next year, before we at least have the November 2013 forecast report published. Because the HICP values and identification of the 3 lowest scoring countries for a reference year, are basicly only possible to predict with a reasonable amount of certainty, at the point of time where we are halfways through the reference year. So we have to wait until the European Commission in November 2013 will publish both the recorded stats for Q2-2013 and Q3-2013, and the forecasted data for the remaing two quarters Q4-2013 and Q1-2014. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another argument supporting that we should stick with my proposed template creation schedule above, is the fact that the criteria table for compliance evaluation through all months in 2013, would also be the one containing the 2012 budget deficit + debt figures (and with recalculated HICP+interest rate reference values according to the month in 2013 where the compliance check is performed). So later modifications of this table will first have to be created, if any country ask for a renewed compliance check in May-December 2013, and in that case it would be confusing for the readers if we had already created the new Convergence Criteria template for future checks in 2014. To say it short and simple: The next 2014-version of the template with forecasted figures will only be appropriate to create in November 2013. Danish Expert (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After additional consideration, and experience with the ongoing updating task here in 2012 (as reported in detail by this other talkpage chapter), I will now go one step further and completely abandon my original idea of running this table with forecast HICPs. When I first introduced the change back on 1 September 2012 it appeared to be a splendid idea. Because it was interesting to track how values were going to be for Latvia and Lithuania just around six months later. Looking back, I however have to admit it did not help to clarify their situation, and perhaps created more confusion instead of helping to sort things out. The problem is, that it is simply impossible to forecast the HICP and "interest rate" reference values six months in advance, because the HICPs are so sensitive towards tax hikes (and in some countries energy prices), that we have very high uncertainty about the forecast figures, even for a forecast of oneyear-averages being based upon recorded data for the first 6 months and only forecasted for the remaining 6 months. Bottom line is, that the forecast reference value for "interest rates" can currently be either 3.5% or 4.0% or even 5.5%, all depending on how the last digit of HICPs will end for the 7 countries currently standing a chance to being picked for the group of 3 benchmark countries with the lowest HICP at the next ordinary evaluation time on 31 March 2013. With such a huge level of uncertainty, I think it is better now completely to avoid displaying these forecast HICP figures in our template. The previous approach with forecast HICPs, is moreover also on the borderline to violate WP:FUTURE. So I will now drop the idea, and instead introduce the new data approach detailed below.Danish Expert (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New data approach and schedule for new template versions

As a good final solution for my many considerations outlined above, I am now ready to introduce a new version and data approach for the template. In the upcomming months, the HICP column and "Interest rate" column will only display actually recorded average data for the past 12 months. Each time we start a new calendar year, it will be time to create a new "Euro convergence criteria (20XX)" template to be displayed in the main article Enlargement of the eurozone. This template can then be used to upload recorded 12-month data for HICP and interest rates during the entire calendar year in concern. It will of course for the first three months of the year (until recorded data are released mid April), show a forecast for the debt+deficit in the past full calendar year, but these forecasts have been prooved to be highly reliable, and when the previous November forecast for debt+deficits will be replaced by a new February forescast -it will be very close (if not identical) with the final values to be published two months later. So this is acceptable. The described approach will also make much more sence, when comparing with the fact that all non-euro countries can ask for a renewed compliance check after each month in the year. So having a template that actually maps the ongoing criteria situation month by month in each year, will be much better and informative to the readers of Wikipedia. I will introduce the new approach, as soon as the next HICP data for December 2012 will be published on 16 January 2013. Stay tuned. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today I have adjusted the template to the new data approach described above. The "hidden notes" in the template have also been updated accordingly, and finaly the template was also renamed to reflect the change from "Euro convergence criteria" to the new title "Euro convergence criteria (2013)". As per the new data approach, the template is only allowed to feature data being recorded in 2013 (with debt+deficit data constantly referring to Fiscal Year 2012). The moment the 2014 calendar year starts, we shall then create a new similar template to display the data for all convergence checks in this specific year. All old year templates are supposed to be listed in the euro convergence criteria article, as a place to map the historical record of all the official convergence checks performed in previous years. Danish Expert (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a very bad idea. Who cares what Sweden's debt to GDP ratio was in 1997? These templates are huge, and filling the Euro convergence criteria article with year-after-year of data doesn't help a reader understand the topic. I don't doubt you put a lot of effort into making this table, however you need to understand that wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. We need to WP:DISCRIMINATE between notable, encyclopedic content and stats that only hurt the readability. I'm honestly not trying to give you a hard time, but these same issues keep coming up over and over again. Not only that, but much of the content is WP:OR. The fact that you provide details on how you calculated the figures should be enough evidence that you haven't provided a WP:RS for the figures. TDL (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, I want to point out and remind you, that my recent update of the data approach for the template was in its entirety working to reduce the amount of WP:OR and WP:FUTURE. If you check the edit history, you will find that I have managed to find new direct WP:RS for all monthly HICP and monthly interest rate figures for all countries in concern, meaning that these figures are no longer calculated for each country. We now have direct RS for these figures, thanks to me. The only thing currently still being calculated is the ECB reference limits, which are calculated according to the published ECB method. Uncertainties for this approach have been clearly highlighted by bottom-note text in the legend for "Criterion". You are correct to point out that it would be preferrable if we had a direct RS from ECB for the monthly re-calculated reference limits, but as this is unfortunately not the case, we have to accept this small deviation from the official WP policy and do this calculation by ourself. All input data for the calculation are by-the-way also provided by the Eurostat RS, so the only WP:OR is that we need to concider if any of the data in the equation should be excluded according to the so-called "outlier criteria". I acknowledge we are operating in the borderline area of what the wikipedia policy can accept, but think it is fully justifiable when considering the template currently notes this slight uncertainty being something the reader should be aware of. Along the way, it is also notable content to follow the monthly update of figures to map if Latvia or Lithuania will comply with the criteria for euro adoption in one of the months during 2013. The new data approach for the table will serve that purpose. Danish Expert (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you've found sources for some of the data. But the data which isn't sourced is still WP:OR, and shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia. Even if you're following the ECB's method, this is still OR. We can't just "deviate" from policy because we can't find a source. TDL (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we now have a RS for all 5 specific data columns for all countries. For the moment we only miss a RS for ECB's monthly "reference limit" for HICP + interest rate. Obviously we need to know these values in order to determine if the background colour in the table for the given month should be red or green. This is why we have no choise other than calculate them ourself on basis of the raw data published by Eurostat. Otherwise we can not perform the compliance check every month, and will be kicked back only to update the table once every second year when ECB publish their official evaluation report. Alternatively we can also make the background colours on the basis of the last reference limits officially calculated by ECB, but as I have already proofed with my publication of the table of reference limits for 2012 and 2013 you can see such an approach would be highly inaccurate. So either we calculate the reference limits each month as I suggest we do for the "temporary template", or else we do not update the table at all (but only one time every second year when ECB publish their report). Again I think that when we have a RS for the raw data in the equation, then it can be supported we calculate these values ourself, for as long as we just continue to note that an uncertainty about the final reference limits exist (as currently indeed is carefully noted by the Criterion legend). I genuinly think many readers are interested to read our updated table, and the information value of the article would greatly decrease if we only show 1 or 2 year old data (and not the most recent data). So I think we should continue to update the template each month, as we have previously done in the past half year. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand. The problem is that we aren't supposed to publish unsourced facts. It could be argued that this is a routine WP:CALC, but it seems to be a pretty borderline case so I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is. TDL (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Country specific parameter

After thinking about it, these historic details might be notable on individual countries articles (ie Sweden and the euro#Status) to show their progression towards fulfillment of the criteria. We could have one row for every year or something. My thought is to use these existing tables, but add an optional parameter which allows us to output only the country of interest's row. This would also allow us to sync the individual country's articles with the main table as well. What do you think? TDL (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this would indeed be a good idea (if possible), as I noted most of the "country page" stats are never/seldom updated. My only uncertainty about your proposal, is how to write the code. I know its possible to implement a country parameter, so that it would work in the way of showing titles cells plus the specific "country row" being selected by the parameter. But then we still would have the title row listed below for "candidates" and "potential candidates" which we do not really want. Perhaps a workaround can be implemented where these seperation rows are not coded with a ! but as an ordinary | row (with background colour matching the ! color)? And then we should of course also remember to code for the special situation if the country specific parameter input is being set to ALL (or not being set), where obviously the entire table in such situations should be displayed (which we need for our two main articles about the subject). I will not have time to work with implementing your proposal for this new parameter code, during the next month. You are welcome to do it, if you have more time than me. Danish Expert (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, you put a lot of work into keeping this main template up to date, so it would be great if we could repurpose the data for the country specific articles. I can do the coding, but it might take me a few days to get around to it. TDL (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will appreciate your help on this area and think your proposal is great. Danish Expert (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got this done. You can check out Sweden and the euro#Status for an example. It would be nice at some point to create one of these tables for each of the previous ECB reports so that we can add the data to each state's article to show how they've progressed towards the targets. However, that will take a lot of time... TDL (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful. Good work. I have just also moved all parenthesises with an exact "date stamp" for the data, so that it is now also displayed by the country specific table rows. If possible (for layout reason), I would prefer if we only in the "country specific table" can merge the "Year" column and "Country" column into basically just a "Year" column. When the country specific article already say the article is about the convergence and euro adoption for the specific country being covered, I dont think it is needed to repeat the country name in each row of the table. If possible, I would instead prefer only to have the following cells+data listed:

Year
Reference limits
Apr 2012
Reference limits
Jan 2013

Is it possible to show the first column of the country specific table like that (without changing the layout of the total table)? If this indeed is possible, I think it would be awsome if you also condence the first column of the country specific table to this improved layout. When we have the layout entirely settled and fixed, I can promise you that I will gradually start to create the historic tables. We first need a final master version, before I start the copy machine and work out the historic ones. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New subarticle to show all prehistoric official "convergence check" templates ?

My previous proposal was to store an example for each year, showing the Convergence check as of April/December. Per your previous WP:NOTSTATSBOOK argument, I am ready to reconsider how often we should permanently store the data in dedicated templates. First of all, I however want to point out that the wikipedia policy allow for STATS to be included in articles for as long as some explaining article text is also provided to put the STATS into context. This is exacly what I had also done in the previous version of the euro convergence criteria article, so I do not agree with you that it was appropriate to remove it all for good (per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK). For the sake of other comparative examples, I will also mention to you that a plethora of sub-articles mainly comprising stat-tables already exist as a wikipedia standard for country specific football articles (Seasonal league stat tables and/or all historic match statistics for national football teams). This is just to illustrate that sometimes it is indeed okay to create subarticles with historic stats at Wikipedia. However, I do agree with you that we should be carefull not to have a too long main article with all pre-historic data. So one solution could be, that we only show the latest Euro convergence criteria template in the euro convergence criteria article, and then create a sub-article featuring all the pre-historic tables (based on ECB's official evaluation reports, being published every twice year or on the request of a member state). If we do it like that, we will always have a RS from ECB for the permanently stored data, and we will at the same time ensure that readability of the euro convergence criteria article is not destroyed. In my point of view, it is notable to keep a version of all old official "convergence check" tables, in the form of available sub-articles for readers both to see at what size reference limits were in the past and which criteria were the most difficult for previous applicants to comply with. Perhaps if we implement your proposal of including country specific code and list all pre-historic country specific data at the country specific pages, then you might have point we do not need also to have pre-historic sub-articles with the entire prehistoric template being visible. But on the other hand, as per your launched idea above the template would either way then already exist (for the purpose of listing country specific info at country specific pages), and so it would only be a small step also to let them be entirely visible with all countries at a pre-historic sub-article (for those readers seeking this kind of overview). I look forward to your response in this case. My great contributions and efforts to improve both the Euro convergence criteria article, Enlargement of the eurozone article, and the relevant templates in concern, deserve to be praised and should not be hauled out as something being completely out of the field. Danish Expert (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because something is done elsewhere on wikipedia, doesn't make it correct. I'm not fundamentally opposed to an article discussing the historic values, however I think it will be difficult to find independent sources to demonstrate the WP:NOTABILITY of the subject. My suggestion would be to start a discussion at the Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard to see whether other editors think the topic is notable enough to warrant an article. That would save you from going through all the work to create the article, only to have it deleted.

Again, please don't take offense that your work has been reverted. That happens to everyone here. I'm not trying to criticize you personally , we just disagree on content. TDL (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think we should submit it for a notability check, then please go ahead as you suggested. As a first case example of a pre-historic subarticle, we already have the section you deleted: Fulfillment of criteria in April 2012. Instead of having one subarticle per template, I would be ready to stack the templates together in the one and same subarticle (if you prefer it like that). This would mean we would only have one historic subarticle featuring all 11 official ECB templates from: 1996+1998+2000+2002+2004+2006(May)+2006(Dec)+2007+2008+2010+2012. If you are concerned about space and/or the degree of details, then I am ready to accept that we cut down all historic templates only to show data-lines for the non-eurozone EU members (while only allowing for the current data template in the main article to feature data for the candidates and potential candidates).

In regards of notability sources, I can tell you that each of the countries that currently aspire to comply with the 5 criteria for euro adoption in fact had articles published each time around the time an official ECB status report was published, where the journalist referred to the report and provided the data for how far the country was from applying with the 5 criteria for euro adoption (In example, I can give you this notability proof for Bulgaria in 2008, to document that I am correct about my notability claim). So we indeed have notability for this subject. As I mentioned above, the Template for April 2012 is basicly also functioning as a seasonal scoreboard for the convergence criteria, which in principle can be compared with a football leagues seasonal scoreboard. I insist this comparision can be made, and that many people will be interested to check the old data score boards. I am 100% sure we can find a Wikipedia policy which provide full support for these seasonal stats to be posted, as long as it is part of a broader context and comply with the notability criteria. Qualification for euro adoption is indeed a part of a broader context (providing info about the expansion prospects for the eurozone), and of notable interest both for the specific countries in concern and other readers who is interested to follow the expansion prospect for the eurozone. The historic stats help to show how far the countries are from qualifying with the 5 criteria, and give a fast explanation for the areas being most problematic for the countries, which they need to focus on in order to comply in the future. The historic stats will also reveal that most of the applicants were pretty close to qualify for euro adoption in May 2008, and then subsequently got their convergence exploded far away from compliance due to the Global Financial Crisis kicking in around September 2008. This is why the historic stats indeed are interesting and notable, as they help to put the eurozone expansion (and its forward going speed and progress) into a broader perspective. Danish Expert (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doesn't bother me whether you seek input on the notability of the topic before creating the article or not. I was simply advising you of that course of action because I suspect that such an article could be deleted due to a lack of notability. I was only trying to save you the hassle of going through all the work of creating the article, only to have it disappear. Proceed as you see fit.

My concern is really only with the main article, and keeping it from becoming cluttered with stats, so go ahead and structure the historic article as you like. I'd agree that a single historic article would be better than one for each year though. For the templates, I think the best approach is to have the most current version at this title, and name the historic ones with a date in brackets afterwords like you did for 2012. Then, every year we can copy this table to the "(XXXX)" template and update this version. That way, all the links to this table are always up to date without having to change any links. TDL (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]