Miscellaneous desk
< April 19	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 20

Japanese money

Me and my girlfriend have invented the term "Japanese Dollar" to mean 100 Yen, an amount very roughly comperable to dollars of other countries (namely, us, canada, australia). My question is, why doesnt Japan seriously invent a new Japanese Dollar (or call it anything else) and make it worth 100 Yen, effectively making the Yen like a penny for their new currency. The big obvious advantage is to make the currency comparable in value (or at least order of magnitude) as other major currencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needing a new currency symbol would be a problem. Then there's the need for a new name, which sounds similar to "yen" and has a similar meaning. How about "ken" ? StuRat (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they would gain much by doing that. It is really not that difficult for people to deal with large exchange rates. --Tango (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Dollar would be a good name.. the symbol can be the same $ used by other dollars. Or the Hello Kitty face... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing is called redenomination. It has been done for other currencies, but the costs and complexity of the change make it something that most countries would want to avoid without a very good reason. (In most cases, governments don't even begin to consider the hassle unless they're looking at a 1000:1 change or more.) Besides, perhaps the Japanese are happy not having to deal with decimals in their currency calculations; if I were Japanese, I might be tempted to ask why Americans insist on a currency confusingly denominated in both 'dollars' and 'cents'.

As for changing the name, you're borrowing trouble. Call it the 'new yen', and then drop the word 'new' after a few years once all the old currency is out of circulation. (See Turkish lira for a similar case.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten, I think you misread the Q. They don't want to retire the current yen, they want to introduce a 100-yen unit in addition to retaining the current yen. StuRat (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to my why they would want to add the complexity. If they need a term for a hundred yen, they have one: 'one hundred yen'. (As an aside, I note that the hundred-yen coin has cherry blossoms on its face, so why not call hundred-yen units sakura? Compare the U.S. informal description of hundred-dollar bills as Benjamins, or even the Canadian dollar coins called loonies. For the prosaic, just call a hundred Japanese yen a 'hundred'; it should be obvious from context that currency is being discussed.) If the Japanese wanted to create a term for a certain-sized chunk of currency, they could — we should be asking why they haven't, not how we can impose Western-style denominations on them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'One hundred yen' in Japanese is 'hyakuen'; it's hardly a mouthful. As 206.90 pointed out, as a westerner making sense of Japanese prices, you can easily think of 100 yen as $1, 1000 as $10, 10000 as $100. So what needs changing? BTW, 206.90, "My girlfriend and I". FiggyBee (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Why should Japan bother? So some people have to deal with extra decimal points in the exchange. Big deal. Meanwhile, most of the population of Japan never notices since they aren't dealing with (or even thinking about) the exchange rate on a day to day basis. Dismas|^(talk) 02:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten is right. Dismas, you are wrong. There are lots of people, not only importers and exporters, who are watchful over foreign-exchange rate on a day to day basis. The rate is important in everyday life. Because the gas price depends on it. Japan has a subunit "sen". It was taken out of circulation at the end of 1953 but is still used at the foreign exchange market and stock exchanges like Nikkei 225. See Japanese yen. Oda Mari (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some figures as to how many Japanese are in a financial career where they have to concern themselves with the exchange rate then. I doubt it's at least 64M of Japan's 127M people which it would need to be in order to fit my comment of "most of the population". Dismas|^(talk) 06:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I somewhat agree with you're point and suspect a majority don't, I think Oda Mari's main point was that it isn't just people in a financial career who concern themselves with the exchange rate because it affects prices and other such things, so it matters even if you aren't dealing directly in currency exchange (like an importer/exporter or in the finance industry/currency trader or sending/receiving money from other countries) so it does matter to ordinary consumers (although IMHO many of them probably not enough that they observe it on a day to day basis). As an aside, plenty of Japanese seem to or did invest money in NZ because of our high interest rate a few years ago although likely still a small minority of Japanese. Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exchange rate is a household topic, not all households though. Crude oil price affects almost all industries in Japan, including the payment to workers. And TV news programs announce the rate everyday along with the stock trading volume of the day. When yen is high, I'd prefer to order things like cloths and books to foreign mail-order companies instead of buying their stores in Japan because, even though I have to pay the shipment to foreign countries, sometimes the merchandises are cheaper. Oda Mari (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the translation of 2000s oil price impact. Oda Mari (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's really a problem for them, I'm sure the Japonese people are quite capable of sorting it out themselves. We do get quite attached to our money; here in the UK, there was a great deal of anguish when we Decimalised (first proposed in 1824 - actually implemented 1971). The Euro was a step too far. Alansplodge (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We do get quite attached to our money" is exactly the reason why the question was asked. When I was in Japan on a scholarship for a year, there were Americans who even after 9 or 10 months still told you they bought this or that for ten dollars, when talking about something they'd spent a thousand yen for. I found this baffling - I started thinking in yen pretty much the moment I got my first scholarship - after all, I was to live for thirty days with what I was given every month, and I saw no reason to complicate this by converting prices and comparing with those back home - dividing by thirty made much more sense. But some people obviously just have more difficulty adjusting. And the really obstinate ones wish others to adjust to them, even when abroad. Oh well. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone thinks in 100 / 1,000 units. In Asia, it is common to see statistics in units of 10,000 (tons produced, for example), rather than 100,000 or 1 million. In this case, the yen comes in a denomination of 10,000. So, what's my point? Don't assume that the way things are done in one part of the world is going to be readily accepted elsewhere. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In countries like Chile, where denominations in the hundreds and thousands are not uncommon, there are unofficial nicknames for larger denominations. I wouldn't be surprised to know that Japanese had some of these. Anyone able to comment on that? Steewi (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese for "hundred", "thousand" and "ten thousand" are all one-syllable names, thus obviating the need for a nickname to replace the clumsily long names of such units in European languages. I can't imagine a nickname for "ten thousand" that would be shorter or more convenient to use than the actual word man. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For another example, there are denomination nicknames in Polish which may have different meanings depending on the context (e.g. grocery shopping versus purchasing real estate). The word dycha can mean either 10 zł or 10,000 zł; bańka can mean either 100 zł or 1,000,000 zł. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French did exactly what you are suggesting for the Japanese currency, back in 1958. The result was that people still thought in terms of the old money, and in everyday life they always talked in old money terms. It was very confusing for foreigners. It went on right up to the introduction of the Euro. The logic was that a strong country had to have a strong currency. But no-one bases their opinion of Japan on whether the yen is a strong or weak currency. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey

In ice hockey, own goals are credited to the last player from the attacking team to touch the puck. What if none of them did? Like a team scoring an own goal after gaining puck possession on the opening face off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I'm following what our article has to say about it, which is "Occasionally, it is also credited to the closest player to the goal from the other team if he is determined to have caused the opposing player to shoot it into the wrong net.", then the offensive player at the face off would get credit. They would be the "closest player" who caused the defensive player to hit the puck in such a way as to score an own goal. Dismas|^(talk) 02:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of section 78.4 in the NHL rule book. discusses "own goals" but doesn't specifically state this particular case. I suspect that they would consider whoever took the face-off to be the last attacking player to have played the puck. Aaronite (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And immediately put the video on YouTube. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say the center for Chicago, Jonathan Toews, pulls the puck back towards his goal and Antii Niemi is oblivious, and it goes in. The goal would go to the opposing centericeman, Steve Sullivan or what have you. If Toews wins it back to another player and that player is harangued into putting the puck in his own net, then the goal would go to whoever was haranguing him the most directly. And if a Chicago player just pots it in his own net independently, then whoever was nearest to him when he took the shot will be accredited the goal. Vranak (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does international mailing work?

I recently got to talking with a friend about something that it turns out we've both been curious about all our lives. She had just sent a letter a friend who is staying in Thailand, and that brought up the issue of the finances of international mail (we're in Sweden). If I want to send a letter to Thailand, I go to a post-office and buy a bunch of stamps, which I put on the letter. Those stamps are supposed to pay for handling and the money goes to the Swedish Postal Service. But as soon as that letter lands in Thailand, it's not the Swedish Postal Service that has to deliver it, it's the Thai Postal Service. But I never payed them a dime in stamps. So how do they get paid?

I mean, it's not like it's all going to even out in the end, some countries are going to be sending waaaay more international mail than they are going to receive (Thailand is a good example; many Swedes go there for holiday, and therefore send many more postcards and things from there than the other way around). An extreme example would perhaps be a country like The Seychelles. They have to be sending out orders of magnitude more mail than they are receiving.

And I seriously doubt that the countries just eat the cost of delivering the mail. Why would they? If the Seychelles don't pay the Swedish Postal Service anything to deliver mail, why should the Swedish Postal Service do that for free? That doesn't make much sense. It the Seychelles want their mail delivered, they can use FedEx.

So the only possibility I see is that all the different postal services around the world actually pay each other for delivering all the mail. But how does that work? Do they all get together at the end of the year and pay each other? And how do they know what to pay each other? Do they count every single international piece of mail they carry? Or do they do some sort of statistical approximation? And do they count it on both ends, so the Seychelles can't underpay Sweden? Is there some sort of international convention about this?

And how much do they pay, exactly? Do every country pay every other country the same rate to deliver mail? That wouldn't really work, since labor costs of delivering that mail would vary wildly across different nations. It's vastly more expensive in real terms to deliver a package in the US than it is in Kenya, so it would seem fair that the different countries can set their own rates. But then how does that work? If the rate is too high, can another country simply say that they wont pay it? Or is it, like, tied to purchasing power or something?

As you might have noticed, I have thought a great deal about this and would be delighted to be enlightened on any of these points. 83.250.239.198 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Universal Postal Union article:

In 1969 the UPU introduced a new system of payment by which fees were payable between countries according to the difference in the total weight of mail between the respective countries. These fees were called terminal dues. The new system was fairer when traffic was heavier in one direction than the other. As this affected the cost of the delivery of periodicals, the UPU devised a new "threshold" system, which was implemented in 1991.

The system sets separate letter and periodical rates for countries which receive at least 150 tonnes of mail annually. For countries with less mail, the original flat rate has been maintained. The United States has negotiated a separate terminal dues formula with thirteen European countries that includes a rate per piece plus a rate per kilogram, and has a similar arrangement with Canada.--Tagishsimon (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See more at http://www.upu.int/terminal_dues/en/index.shtml, for example the link to http://www.upu.int/terminal_dues/en/history_composition.html. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil covered this some years ago. --Sean 18:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Trek

While reading the article on the National Party in South Africa there is a line that states that nationalism was increased as a feeling due to the celebrations of the centenay of the great trek, when or on what date is this celebrated, being a boer, I would like to go home for these celebrations, but have never heard of any specific date as the Great Trek was over a long period. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been a re-enactment starting on 8 August 1938, according to this source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What toyline is this?

In her childhood, my sister was a devoted fan of this toyline. It's called "Pikkaraiset", translating to something like "the little ones", in Finnish. It's an import of some foreign toyline, but I have never been able to find out what it was. Some sources claim it was originally called "Forest Families". But neither the Finnish Wikipedia or the English Wikipedia seem to have an article about "Pikkaraiset" or "Forest Families". It's pretty similar to the TV show "Sylvanian Families" but I'm pretty sure it's not based on the TV show. Can anyone identify this exact toyline? JIP | Talk 21:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not many pics of the toys on our Sylvanian Families, but they don't look the sam from what I can see. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of online auction-type listings for "Forest Families toys", this one says they were not Sylvanian Families [1] DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this DVD says they were. Go figure. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing those things recently, in Canada they're called Cloverleaf corners dolls. Library Seraph (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Oops, that would be calico critters of cloverleaf cornersLibrary Seraph (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to Calico Critters. Bielle (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I played with "Maple Town" toys when I was a kid. This website says that Sylvanian Families (a.k.a. Calico Critters of Cloverleaf Corners), Maple Town, and Forest Families were similar but distinct toy lines. From the pictures, the type the OP linked to are definitely Forest Families. — jwillbur 17:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have to ask my sister if she still has any of the toys left. If she has, I can borrow some and compare them to the pictures on that site. I tried to look at the official website of Calico Critters, but when I found out that it was yet another of those countless commercial websites that requires you to watch a ten-minute Flash animation before you can even get to see the basic info, I simply couldn't be bothered to pursue further. JIP | Talk 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Order

Hi! Last night i was flying from Buenos Aires to Miami, and the guy ahead of me in line to Immigration check was wearing some kind of religious garb: white shirt, thick ornate top with the Fleur the lis in front , but what was unusal was that he was wearing tall, black horse back riding boots.... never seen a monk in such a uniform.... was going to get him and talk to him, but he dissapeared... Do you have any info on the order, monks, etc, Would appreciate any feedback.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc stetz (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email address removed. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the boots were being worn for functional reasons then for religious ones? Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure he was wearing it for religious reasons? What you describe sounds like the kind of clothing worn by gauchos. Or, thinking of the Fleur de Lys symbol, maybe he was into jousting. Maybe, he was going to pick up his horse from the freight terminal later that day? - horses are carried by air-freight, right? Astronaut (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fleur-de-lis is a symbol of the Trinity, so that would make him a Christian monk of some denomination. You could also assume that they would be either Catholic or one of the Protestant sects which remain closer to Catholocism, as many other Protestant sects deemphasize the Trinity. However, the fleur-de-lis also symbolizes many other things, such as French nationalism, so he might just be a member of the Bloc Québécois. StuRat (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 April 20

Contents