Talk:Indian rupee sign

I am unable to view the Indian rupee currency symbol in the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.104.95 (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is it not possible for us to have it displayed in the same way as in the Russian-language Wikipedia at ru:Символ рупии? -- Picapica (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Any source pointed out that the combined symbols R and र look so similar because they both derive from the Phoenician Resh? I wonder if the designer was aware of this, or thought it was just a happy coincidence. --86.149.68.47 (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is a known fact and was the reason by many of the contributors decided to merge the two. I do not think it derives from the Phoenician.--PremKudva^Talk 04:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's interesting. And yes, it does derive from Phoenician, fascinatingly enough. Read Resh and Brāhmī_script#Aramaic_hypothesis for more information on this :) --86.149.68.47 (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks I will.--PremKudva^Talk 10:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe that there is a meaningful distinction between these two article titles, and that one should redirect to the other. I believe that Rupee sign should be the main article, and Indian rupee sign should redirect to it. It's noteworthy that the Rupee sign article mainly seems to discuss the old sign, and the Indian rupee sign mainly discusses the new one. Do we consider it necessary to have two separate articles for the old and new? - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Speedy merge No need for two articles. Just have a section for the Indian sign within the other article. Reywas92^Talk 02:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
• Disagree The new sign is for the Indian rupee only and not for other rupees. So merger into Rupee sign which mentions Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, Mauritius, Seychelles, Indonesia, and the Maldives besides Indian will be misleading and hence not required.--PremKudva^Talk 04:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Disagree The Rupee Sign article is for currency symbol of all the countries that use Rupee as their currency, and Indian Rupee Sign article is for New Indian currency sign. Please also note that the Rs. sign is encoded in Unicode character set, while the new sign for Indian Rupee is yet to be encoded.

Of course, it seems that the Rupee sign article is also newly created, and it should be expanded by including summary from all the country's rupee articles.

Raju Das 08:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajuonline (talk • contribs)

• • That's why the Indian sign info should be a subsection of the other article. It would never say that it is the only sign. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Disagree You people fail to recognise that the article Rupee sign is common to all rupees i.e. Sri Lankan or Pakistani or Nepali etc. This Symbol is represented in Unicode as ₨ with code U+20A8. But the article i.e. Indian Rupee sign is about the new Indian Rupee Symbol. Hence there is nothing wrong in having separate article. I am strongly against the merger. Since it is a brand new entity it is ideal to have it as a separate article. Over time both these articles will develop into full-fledged articles R.Sivanesh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC).Reply

• Disagree The article Rupee sign should be the main article and should have a section or link for the article Indian Rupee sign. Another way would be to have a disambiguation page for these two signs.--Uttiya.basu (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
• Disagree. We should have four articles: Indian rupee, Indian rupee sign, Rupee, and Rupee sign. That is what we have today, and it's all we need. I have put hatnotes on Indian rupee sign and Rupee sign pointing to one another. -- Evertype·✆ 15:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Kubek15 mentions that the Rupee symbol resembles the Euro symbol. Searching for this information shows one site which mentions that if the new rupee sign is inverted and mirrored and parts of it sliced off it will look like the euro sign. This is useless rubbish information unfit to be placed on an encyclopaedia page. Please refrain from adding this again. It will be removed every time you add it.--PremKudva^Talk 10:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, I read about it in two biggest Polish newspapers - Rzeczpospolita and Gazeta Wyborcza, but OK... Kubek15 ^write/sign 11:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Kubek15, the similarity is very far fetched. The Re symbol has to be inverted, mirrored and major parts chopped off for it to resemble the euro. It is not at all notable which is why it was removed.--PremKudva^Talk 05:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Something on the negative side should also be there inorder to maintain nuetrality hence I have undid your editR.Sivanesh (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Opposing only for the sake of opposing is not good. I agree with Prem's opinion and would support removing funny comparison between Euro sign and Indian National Rupee Sign. Amolnaik3k (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Quite agree with Amolnaik3k here, if there was raging controversy that the new symbol was an outright copy of another existing sign, then that should go into the article. Otherwise it is not notable at all.--PremKudva^Talk 05:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do not add links to other currency signs to the bottom of the page. There is a comprehensive table listing all the currently available currency signs making any addition of currency sign links heavily redundant!--PremKudva^Talk 10:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Having a small list of other currency signs will be value addtions to the article hence I am undoing your editR.Sivanesh (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Table lists all the currencies, a small list of link to important currencies seems to be logical in the See Also section. Amolnaik3k (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

We keep getting edits from various sources about a controversy in the selection process of the symbol, regular references are made to an organisation known only as The RTI or RTI activists, their website finally reveals 5 chaps who are supposed to be these RTI activists. Lot of allegations are raised with a corresponding document from the Govt on their website. There are references in some websites about a raging controversy, which somehow has not made into the main stream media. Until clear details are available about this, I feel it should be made part of the article, especially since all cites provided belong to "the RTI"'s website Save Indian Rupee Symbol before it is too late. Giving an impression that something very dire is going to happen, like say a meteor slamming into the earth's crust. In the end only one symbol could be adopted, almost all of them looked like R and the Hindi र, so there was not much originality going to be used here.--PremKudva^Talk 06:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Quite! Take a look - if you haven't already - at the recent history of Indian rupee and Rupee (and, if I remember correctly, at least one other article - I forget which right now). My talk page also has some background on the issue. At Indian rupee editors there have managed to get a "controversy" editor to place their "controversy" text in the article instead of the WP:LEAD, which is a small improvement, but I suspect this WP:SOAPBOXing isn't going to end any time soon. A small minority feel there's a controversy and they're quite happy to cry "censorship" when the overwhelming majority of editors prevent them spamming every tangentially related article with the "controversy". TFOWR 07:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

TFOWR may have been thinking of Rupee sign, a disambig page that was briefly replaced with a copyvio; or New Indian Rupee Symbol Controversy which was created to replicate the "controversy" in its own space, now redirecting to Indian rupee sign. —sroc (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was! After I wrote that I went back and looked through my recent edits around this subject. There's also D Udaya Kumar - the article about the designer of the new symbol. TFOWR 12:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I went through the documents on that save the rupee site, the first request for information asks for some 10 points, from number of applications received, whether a committee met or not, right down to the absurd ie they wanted the names, addresses, phone nos and e-mail ids of the chaps in the committee. These 'activists' are insane!--PremKudva^Talk 09:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is indeed a controversy about the selection process as a result of an RTI application by the so-called RTI activists. Although it is being widely discussed only by a few individuals, it raises an important point that needs to be considered and further investigated. The replies from the ministry to the RTI applications filed by these people have clearly exposed certain irregularities in the selection process, which they have pointed out. Deleting this content just because it was created by a few individuals is not proper for a democratic setup like wikipedia. They have documentary evidence published on their site to show the irregularities in the selection process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahesh man (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry, at this moment that issue cannot be termed notable at all. All links so far only point to the save the rupee symbol site. I have yet to come across an independent report in this matter. Even the newspapers that you referred on my talk page, point to save the rupee site. We cannot add this matter based just on one site information. I have gone through the documents posted there, both the request for info and the reply. It is not conclusive until another independent party proves it. Until such time we cannot have it here, since Wikipedia articles are often referred to in such matters.--PremKudva^Talk 06:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Although of course a code position has not yet been chosen for the INDIAN RUPEE SIGN, I think it is unwise to have links to these fonts that map the glyph to GRAVE ACCENT. Wikipedia supports Unicode, and by giving these links we help to proliferate what will be a competing encoding. Not a good idea. -- Evertype·✆ 10:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have added health-warnings to the fonts, particularly the one that re-maps U+20A8. It is not unreasonable to have links so that people can use the glyphs. The UTC will meet in August. -- Evertype·✆ 11:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Me, a Unicode lay man, doesn't get it yet. You say there are suggestions to reuse a code point (U+2048)??? Which is utterly nonsense, and will not happen (so much lay I am not). Then you refer GRAVE ACCENT, but U+2048 looks like ?! QUESTION EXCLAMATION MARK.

My question is: is there a proposed code point for the INDIAN RUPEE SIGN, or should we wait? -DePiep (talk)

Probably, you meant to write U+20A8, which looks like "Rs", RUPEE SIGN. (i.e. the current Rupee sign). That makes sense. My question stays. -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did not propose a code position in my proposal. The proposal has not been discussed, nor approved, by the UTC or WG2. The UTC meets next week, I believe. -- Evertype·✆ 21:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now is there a proposed code point, or not? Nobody will be hanged for a denied proposal. -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, here is a serious publication on this. It seems there is no code point designed at all, in public. Very strangely, the proposing author writes:

"A UCS codepoint assignment for this character is urgent.
Already at least one font has been published 
which puts the character’s glyph at U+0060 GRAVE ACCENT."

As if Unicode would even consider. It reads more like a pressure-thing. In that we can agree: a first assignment is needed. -DePiep (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The author: Position U+20B9 is proposed 6a (Unicode block Currency Symbols). The code point is currently not assigned (5.2). -DePiep (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you mind, DePiep, not talking about me in the third person? I am the author of that proposal, and I don't see why you should be alarmed by anything in the document. Or why you can't wait a fortnight for the committee to discuss the proposal. -- Evertype·✆ 19:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

(1) Me writing 3rd person is (trying to be) courteous. Giving you freedom to react. Because there are three id's involved:

1. User:Evertype ✆ here on wiki,
2. One of the category:People involved with Unicode: Michael Everson,
3. Internet known person "Michael Everson".

I am not the one who wants to connect two of these a priori. Please don't complain I connect names (or not): I'm trying to keep you free. Only since you ask for it, I am pleased to do so. I will gladly comply.
(2) Then, more relevant here & why I wrote what I wrote: two statements from you.

• I did not propose a code position in my proposal -- Evertype·✆ 21:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Position U+20B9 is proposed Michael Everson (Unicode proposal n3862, 6a)

That is a contradiction, Michael.
(3) And to be clear: what you do & write I take very serious. Exactly that is why we are talking here. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC) edit to: singular, not plural -DePiep (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
(4) You suggest waiting for the committee. I say: Today (As of 8 August 2010^[update]) it is a proposal. So we describe it as such. If the UCS decides different -- it be so. Any stupid programmer who uses a "proposed" code point for sure, creates h/h own problem. Not ours. We wrote clearly "proposal". (4) added -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

You do not come across as being courteous. In fact, you are coming across as being snotty. I don't like it. In point of fact, the text of the proposal does not propose a code point. It is hidden away in the summary form for the benefit of the committee, because I (wisely) did not want a proliferation of fonts out there with a position that might not be selected. Your flagging it here is neither helpful nor wise. Your trumpeting the "contradiction" is more about your ego than about the encoding of this important character. Well done. :-| -- Evertype·✆ 10:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not combining id's is a general, courteous practice on internet, and am not convinced by your reaction to change that policy in general. More, it shows that combining personalities makes it ... personal.

I found a source, used the new found facts and put a post on the Talkpage describing this. Which is quite correct here. If that is personal to you, you might consider skipping the topic altogether. It is an collaboratively written encyclopedia, and WP:NOTBLOG.

Then, you write "snotty", a cynical "Well done. :-| ", and a non-rational edit summary. Whatever your covered arguments are, I ask you to correct that language. It is not WP:CIVIL. -DePiep (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is no secret on the Wikipedia that Evertype and Michael Everson are the same person. Your attempts to impress me by quoting WP: this or that does not impress me. Your attitude has been pushy, in my opinion. I chose adjectives which expressed my views. Your response is to call me irrational. This bores. -- Evertype·✆ 23:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The quotes I mentioned are irrational, they're your opinions and personal judgements, which are not for discussion -- and do not belong here. And when you call me names, I am free to refer to WP:CIVILITY, to point you to a general rule of behaviour here. Calling that to "to impress" (another judgement btw), what, are you above the rules? -DePiep (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

My opinions are not irrational. In point of fact (with regard to this article) I am actually doing something in the real world to help this character get encoded. Your edit, to use the passive voice and a mere date when you knew the author of the proposal, was ridiculous in my opinion. Your resort to "argument by authority" in terms of citing WP: this or that was designed to chasten me, I warrant. My opinion remains the same: It is important to manage the implementation of this currency sign carefully. Making a quiet proposal to committees is one thing. Blaring it out as you have done in an encyclopaedia article is not responsible, in my informed view. Go edit something else, please, and leave me and this argument alone. I am participating in the UTC committee meetings by phone and I promise I will put the real code point here if one gets chosen. That will help India get this thing implemented. What you are doing will not. -- Evertype·✆ 07:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The UTC decided to accept U+20B9. WG2 will meet in October and the character would go out on an ISO ballot after that. My recommendation is to ask font developers to use U+20B9. -- Evertype·✆ 07:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

re earlier on edit above, by Evertype --(07:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC):

1: You called me "snotty" and (cynically) "Well done. :-| " here, and my sourced edit you reverted calling it "this is rediculous" without clarifying. That is a personal judgement on me and my edits, so I asked for WP:CIVILITY (and still do).

2: You conflate your work for Unicode with your wp-editorship. Then you comply that I do not do so, and that I "trumpet" a contradiction. You are showing that your toes are long. That's what I call getting personal, as in "getting emotional". This is one reason why WP:COI exists, as a warning. I pointed to that.

3: In the edit this re is about, you add "I am actually doing something in the real world" and "Go edit something else, please, and leave me and this argument alone.". Apart from being uncivil and not cooperative, here you claim authority, which is unwanted. I ask for you to withdraw these statements.

4: To be clear, might you have written serious arguments in all this, I claim you hid them well behind this unwanted behavior. Don't expect me to clean your text before being able to reading it. -DePiep (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did not say you were snotty. I said you were coming across as being snotty. There is a difference. And nothing you have said convinces me of anything but that you want to score points. It's a pity you haven't anything better to do. -- Evertype·✆ 12:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have added a link to a new font which uses the recommended code position. -- Evertype·✆ 15:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've just moved the page from "₹" to "Indian rupee sign". I've done this for a couple of reasons:

• Consistency with other currencies, e.g. Dollar sign/$, Pound sign/£;
• Support for the symbol is still extremely limited. I'm using one of the few fonts that's supposed to support the new unicode character, and it's still appearing as broken on my PC - most readers will be in an even worse position.

Related to this, I'm not sold on using the unicode char instead of an image at this point, due to most readers not having support for this character at this point. I've left the unicode character in the article, but I'd strongly recommend reverting it back to the image until browser/system support improves. Remember that the article is going to read by readers outside India, who may have older systems that don't support the character yet. TFOWR 10:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, Ubuntu 10.10 shipped with support for display the Indian rupee ('₹') on 2010-10-10. —Sladen (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The font is available for Ubuntu 10.04 as well - I'm using it right now. I still see a box where I should see the symbol, however, and the fact remains that most readers won't be running Ubuntu 10.10. TFOWR 12:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The current name is perfect for the time being. The technical support for the symbol is limited and not universally accepted, apart from the current existing usage for other currencies shows that the name "Indian rupee sign" is the most apt. However, we can have a redirect from the unicode currency symbol. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 08:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the section regarding the second PIL that editor Info2012 talk had inserted in multiple edits without following general wikipedia editing rules over the past year. Reason for deletion is that this case was regarding a PIL against "no uniform guidelines for public competitions to select symbols and logos of entities of national importance" ..See HC seeks MHA reply on selection of logos.. and had nothing to do with this article whatsoever.--PremKudva^Talk 11:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Info2012 talk is deliberately vandalising this article pretending to add items relating to the Indian rupee sign and getting into edit/revert wars. I have checked to find that the second PIL had nothing to do with the Indian rupee sign, and was about selection of logos via competition by Govt institutions in the future. Info2012 has mislead users here by saying the case was about the Indian rupee sign.--PremKudva^Talk 06:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why does the ₹ symbol appear properly in the text, but not at the top of the Infobox?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

User:InternetArchiveBot archived the below link on 03:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC):Reply

• https://web.archive.org/web/20140824121834/http://www.archive.tehelkahindi.com/indinoo/national/1726.html to http://www.archive.tehelkahindi.com/indinoo/national/1726.html

... and the below on 06:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC):

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130531034323/http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_eco_affairs/currency_coinage/Comp_Design.pdf to http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_eco_affairs/currency_coinage/Comp_Design.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124020037/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Rs-selection-process-challenged-in-High-Cout/Article1-630123.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Rs-selection-process-challenged-in-High-Cout/Article1-630123.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609190607/http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=360686&catid=40 to http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=360686&catid=40

following its selection through an “open” competition among Indian residents.

Why is the word open in quotation marks? That implies that the competition was open in manner only, but was actually not open, or was somehow rigged.

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply