Wikipedia

Talk:Mongolian tögrög

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Community Tech bot in topic Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
Learn more about this page

20000

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Found [1]. More info should come in the following days. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tögrög

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago25 comments8 people in discussion

Should we move this article to Mongolian tögrög. It seems to be the accepted transliteration of тɵгрɵг.
Dove1950 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Tögrög would indeed be the correct transliteration according to WP:MON. On the other hand, Tugrug might be the established english name in banking circles. If so (I really have no idea), then it would take precedence over the transliteration. --Latebird 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Dove. —Nightstallion (?) 15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
The references I have are the Standard Catalogs, both published by Krause, which use "tugrik", and "tughrik" from [2]. I can't see where they got the "ik" from. I'm worried I'm going to get accused of "original research" again (not that I'm bothered but it wastes time), so I thought I'd better do a little concensus building first. Let's move!
Dove1950 22:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Back to Tugrik?

edit
This move rides roughshod not only over Wikipedia guidelines (which mandate using the normal English name -- a Google search reveals that 'tugrik' is overwhelmingly the most common term for this currency in English), but also over Dove1950's own sources, the Standard Catalogues!
Dove1950's surmise that he 'can't see where they got the "ik" from' is almost worse than original research, and certainly doesn't justify changing over to his favoured choice -- a direct transliteration of the Mongolian. Enforcing your own transliteration over the most common English name and the name used in specialist sources is as close to "original research" as you can get!
Bathrobe (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Besides the personal attacks, what specificly are your arguments? Chosing a spelling is hardly "original research", it's simply a decision to make. Apparently the printed sources offer several variants, so which one of them is the "most common"? And as I'm sure you know, Google search results are mostly irrelevant, because it is impossible to really restrict them to English language sources. So what new information do you have available, that the three of us weren't aware of a year ago? --Latebird (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Let's move it to "Tögürig"! Yaan (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I've removed comments that could be construed as a "personal attack". I was essentially criticising Dove1950 for making the move without proper grounds.
  • You admit yourself that the established English name "might" take precedence over a transliteration.
  • Dove1950 himself noted that the Standard Catalogs use "tugrik".
  • A Google search on "Mongolian tugrik" yields 4,170,000 results. "Mongolian tögrög" yields 2,210. Please tell me of another language that is likely to have the term "Mongolian tugrik".
  • Dove1950 has been using the argument that "only the name printed on the note is valid". This criterion has already been overturned at the Numismatics project.
  • The point that Dove1950 himself couldn't see where they got the "ik" from is not a valid reason for making such a move.
No, deciding on a name is not "original research". But the reasons for doing so smack of original research. And overturning the established convention on usage of accepted English terms is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.
Bathrobe (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
It's becoming a habit with Bathrobe to indulge in personal attacks. I've asked him/her to desist. I see it's not got through just yet. To deal with the substance of Bathrobe's comments, I suspect that s/he has missed the fact that the name is written on the money in two non-Latin scripts. Consequently, we need a transliteration. Tögrög is based on WP:MON. Complaints should probably be posted there.
Dove1950 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I had a look at WP:MON. It said: "When something has a conventional name in English, use that name instead of transliterating."
Bathrobe (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Incidentally, I looked at a thousand tugrik note (not "thousand tugriks note") from my wallet, and it has three expressions in Cyrillic: МОНГОЛ УЛС, МОНГОЛБАНК, and ТѲГРѲГ. If you want the first on English-language Wikipedia, you look up "Mongolia". For the second you go to "Bank of Mongolia" ("Mongolbank" is a redirect). Are these also in violation of WP:MON?
Bathrobe (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That leaves us with the task to reliably determine the most common use in recent literature. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style (which is not really a policy/guideline, but just a recommendation), it says:

Use the term for the currency that is most commonly used by standard English language sources. Such sources include encyclopedias, media of record, academic literature, government publications, and numismatic catalogues. English language descriptions of the currency by the issuing authority, as well as usage of English names on the currency itself, should also be considered.

That's quite a variety of sources that might come into play, and Google search results aren't mentioned. However, Google scholar allows to search a representative section of academic literature. Searching all documents, Tugrik wins, but in recent works, use of the two spellings is almost equally balanced. This may be similar or different in other types of publications, so we'll probably have to do a little more research before we can draw any meaningful conclusions. (Btw: There are also geographic names like Tögrögiin shiree, which may appear in searches in both spelling variants, and need to be filtered out). --Latebird (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have three points here:
  • According to Dove1950, numismatic catalogues use 'tugrik'.
  • Britannica online yields only 'tugrik'. There are no hits for 'tögrög'.
  • On the other hand, the Bank of Mongolia website uses 'togrog'.
Bathrobe (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Even more than Ulan Bator, tugrik is still English usage and WP:UE, current currency guidelines, and WP:MON call for using English. Even Mongolia itself has used this spelling as can be seen at Image:Stamp Mongolia 1932 1t.jpg. But, if there is insistance on going against these, tögrög, not togrog, should be used. — AjaxSmack 05:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
A postage stamp from 1932 to illustrate "common English use" of today? Really? --Latebird (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
It was the last Mongolian stamp to have any currency denomination in a Latin alphabet. I noted that "Mongolia itself has used this spelling," not that it necessarily still does. My opinion on the move is based on numismatic usage also reflected in general literature that has been presented here. — AjaxSmack 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think the 2,000:1 Google result indicates fairly conclusively that "tugrik" is still normal English usage. I'm not sure how you can so adamantly stand by "Ulan Bator" (the old spelling) in one place while so easily accepting "tögrög" (the new spelling) at another. At the debate on Ulaanbaatar, it's pointed out that "Ulaanbaatar" outnumbers "Ulan Bator" on Google scholar searches of recent publications, but this is not enough to swing the vote. On the other hand, despite the fact that your own search on "tögrög" and "tugrik" only indicates that they are equal in more recent publications, you are insisting that this is good enough to give preference to "tögrög" over "tugrik". I'm a little confused here.
Bathrobe (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
You are confused because you assume that I have made up my mind in either case, which I haven't. The only thing that I "adamantly" do is ask for solid evidence. There is also no inherent connection between the two rename requests, each one will have to be looked at on its own merits. --Latebird (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is almost evident that "ik" is from the Russian spelling. This is the same case as Ulanbator. Temur (talk) 11:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not almost or anywhere close to evident that it has anything to do with Russian (which I assume is some kind of slur). According to the Classical Mongolian script still printed on all of Mongolia's money, tögrög is ᠲᠥᠬᠦᠷᠢᠬ (tögürik) in Classical which would have been the basis of transliterations before 1941. None of this matters though. If English called it a rupee, borrowed from the Nepalese, it's rupee in English. — AjaxSmack 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
The Russian and English spellings are consistent with each other, so there is a very good chance one borrowed from the other, and if this is true there is a very good chance that English borrowed from Russian. Temur (talk) 23:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
There's no reason to assume a slur. Most Mongolian words that are known in a different form in the west have come here in that form through Russian. Also, there is no /k/ in modern Mongolian words, no matter how certain letters of the traditional Mongolian script may have been pronounced in historical times. In the 20th century and today, a more appropriate transcription from the traditional script as eg found on this banknote would be "tögrig". To better reflect the vowel harmony in the actual pronounciation, the cyrillic script has turned that into "tögrög" --Latebird (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
as hinted at before, it is tögürig (or tögörig of course). the vowels after these 'g' and 'kh' letters are often hard to spot, but this case is quite clear. Yaan (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This question just seems to have fallen asleep without a conclusion. It looks like the spelling "Tugrik" is indeed still very common. However, I'd like to see more specific references for the numismatic catalogs. If those give us confirmation, then I'd vote for renaming back until English language use changes significantly. --Latebird (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Tugrik is indeed Russian. It does carry a certain sense of 'crap currency' in slang, but it is also used humourously in conversation to designate the RUSSIAN ROUBLE (or any other currency, for that matter). Due to the popularity of the term and the vastly larger number of Russian speakers vs. Mongolian speakers, the millions of search results people have been getting for 'tugrik' have little or nothing to do with Mongolia or its currency. Aadieu (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

confusing sentence

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Möngö coins are not in circulation as currency any longer, as their value is fractions of one tögrög.

I know what the author is trying to say here, but as written, it doesn't say what was intended!

Möngö coins were always worth fractions of one tögrög.

The point that should be made is that 1 tögrög now has insufficient purchasing power to be of any practical use, and that as such the möngö is effectively valueless.

Mayalld 11:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thankyou for making this page. It's a realy big help with my project.(keep up the good work)68.205.188.68 17:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)MichaelReply

Purchasing power

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This section is not cited by any references. Is there anyone here that can confirm these prices for food/lodging? It seems too cheap to me...but then I have never been there. Sarangburung (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

In summer, a single Huushuur was still considerably cheaper than 700 T, I think. On the other hand, bus fares have recently been raised to 400 T for a normal bus, IIRC. I have not slept in tourist hostels for several years (back then, we paid only 2 USD per night), but 10,000 is about what you pay for a small 4-bed ger in a simple ger camp (no shower/pit toilet) in the countryside. Yaan (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

How is "tögrög" pronounced?

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

That doesn't exactly seem obvious to me. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Төгрөг - 圖格里克!!!!

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MNT is not China's currency. Why write Chinese here! Hoshi.sasori (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

In the past

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

100 Mung = 1 Tugrig Böri (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Tea leaves?

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I heard that in the 18th Century they used tea leaves as currency in Mongolia. Is this true? If so, shouldn't there be some mention of this on this page or maybe the page on the Mongolian dollar? VenomousConcept (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Mongolian tögrög. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mongolian_tögrög&oldid=1258652577"