text:
Talk:Supply and demand/Archive 1

Microfoundations?
Shouldn't the page contain more of an explanation of where the supply and demand curves come from? It could be integrated with the page on marginalism (which by the way severly needs a clean-up).

 * I disagree. The law of diminishing marginal utility does, indeed, explain why a demand curve slopes downward. However, the law of diminishing marginal returns explains why a supply curve is generally depicted as having an upwards slope. Because the "supply curve" for any firm is the marginal cost curve above the average cost curve, diminishing marginal returns stipulates that marginal cost rises at every quantity. What you've said is accurate (the price off the supply curve at any given point represents the marginal willingness to accept), but I believe technically insufficient.Jackson744 03:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish someone could relate this principle to the matter of "indirect taxes." I recently read -- it may have been in Wikipedia -- that indirect taxes are taxes levied on a company but passed along to the consumer, through higher prices (I imagine that gasoline taxes operate this way). Is this a violation of the law of supply and demand? If the price of gasoline is already as high as the market would bear, then shouldn't gasoline companies pay the taxes out of their profits? SR

 * Yes, if the company is taxed, it has to solve an optimization problem: it could either add the whole tax to the price, thus decreasing sales and profits, or leave the price alone and pay the tax directly out of its profits, or do something in between that maximizes profit. But the company's profit will always be lower than before the taxation. AxelBoldt

 * have economists developed models to explain/predict when companies will choose one solution over the other? I think that discussion of this optimization problem, and the different sollutions, would be a useful addition if not to this page then to the one on tazes, SR

 * It depends on the shape of the demand curve. If the demand curve is such that x% increase in price will always cause x% drop in sales, then it doesn't matter what the company does: it will always have its profits decreased by the full tax rate. If the drop in demand is bigger than the rise in price, then the company should maintain the price and absorb the tax. If the drop in demand is smaller than the price increase, then the company should slap the tax onto the price. If the demand curve is not linear, then an intermediate solution will be optimal. If you knew the precise formula of the demand curve, you could find the optimal solution using calculus. AxelBoldt

 * See the new discussion linked at the bottom about taxes and subsidies. Hopefully that should answer all questions. jrincayc

This is a useful application of S&D theory which is covered in every intro micro text book I've seen. The full answer to your question can be found on the taxation page under "economics of taxation". See this diagram for a graphical representation of the effect. The short answer is that who bears the greatest share of the tax depends on the elasticity of supply/demand. The party which is the least responsive to price changes (ie more elastic) will pay a greater share of the tax. Psychobabble 01:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tried to add the function of buyers' and sellers' motivation, but I it didn't look as good as the mechanistic thing, so I reverted my own changes. But I still think we should mention why increased demand tends to raise price. Just in case someone from a socialist country wants to understand why the Free World's economy prospers. --Ed Poor

 * Basically, the increased demand creates an oppertunity for profit, since there will be people who want the good, but are unable to buy it for an amount that is above the market price. Since sellers can sell to some people for an amount above the market price, they make more money than selling at the market price, so it happens.  This then causes the market price to increase. Jrincayc 16:22 25 May 2003 (UTC)

 * *cough* Enron, Microsoft ... boom & bust ... *cough* could we have economic NPOV around here?

 * What are you talking about? I can't find enron, microsoft, boom & bust anywhere on the page.  jrincayc

 * The above anon appears to think that a critique of corporate capitalism is required for NPOV. It isn't, but Ed Poor's account of his frustrating attempt to consider what determines the behaviour of buyers and sellers suggests to me that we could kill two birds with one stone, here: wouldn't it be more encyclopaedic to append a brief reference to the rival 'cost of production' account of price formation, which would also bring into view one account of how buyers' and sellers' dispositions might be formed? Answers to that critique would then strengthen the article further. Adhib 16:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * For want of feedback on this suggestion, I have added the reference to the bottom of the main article, for readers to pursue independently of the article. However, I still think this topic could be immensely enriched if a rival account was used to throw S&D's strengths and weaknesses into relief. Adhib 20:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-

Can there be some discussion of price signals, and how they might cause violations of supply and demand? E.g. if price increases, I might see this as a signal that price is going to jump higher, and therefore I should buy now, while it's still low. Especially as regards speculation (as opposed to simple consumption of the good) this is an important phenomenon that drives boom/bust bubbles (e.g., Pets.com stock went up 20 points! Buy! buy!) and ought to be discussed. Unfortunately my knowledge of economics is nearly zilch and I am not the person to do this... Graft 13:38 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * So far as supply and demand is conserned, this is basically just a change in the demand curve. However, discussion of the above would probably be pretty interesting in a different article.  Jrincayc 23:48 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Nyeh... i think it's a bit of a dodge to call it a change in the demand curve when the change is based on rate of change of price... Doesn't supply and demand generally assume the demand curve is fixed for a given product?
 * Anyway, what article do you think this belongs in? Graft 22:54 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Supply and demand generally assumes that the demand curve is based on huge numbers of variables including expected future value, prices of other products, ... and so it is only fixed when everything else stays the same. As for a real answer to your question either someone else will have to answer, or I will have to think about it more.  Jrincayc 02:26 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Graft introduces a very interesting question. I agree with Jrincayc that price signals do not violate any principles of supply and demand, and the basic result is a shift in the demand curve. But I think we can all agree with Graft that there is much more to it than that. It introduces elements of uncertainty theory and expectation theory. Some might even argue that it is best dealt with using game theory. This is a very complex issue and far beyond the present Wikipedea. If anyone wants to look into it further, you could start with The Analytics of Uncertainty and Information (1994) in the Cambridge Surveys of Economic Literature series, Cambridge University Press. I would be very interested is reading any Wiki article that results from this discussion. mydogategodshat 05:39, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

error?
I think I have discovered an error in the entry for Supply and Demand.

The text reads: ''When the suppliers' costs change the supply curve will shift. For example, if someone invents a better way of growing wheat, then the amount of wheat that can be grown for a given price will increase. This creates a shift from a original supply curve S0 to a new lower supply curve S1 - a decrease in supply.''

The curve does indeed shift "down" (or indeed rightward) but this indicates an increase in supply, not a decrease. For a given price a supplier will be willing and able to produce more quantity, and also the equilibrium quantity is higher.

Or am I missing a massive point / taking too much Grade A crack? loz

 * Agreed. I flipped them. Jrincayc 13:26, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Now the section says:
 * This raises the equilibrium quantity from Q0 to the higher Q1. In this situation, we say that there has been an increase in demand which has caused an extension in supply.

 * Conversely, if the demand decreases, the opposite happens. If the demand starts at D1, and then decreases to D0, the price will decrease and the quantity supplied will decrease - a contraction in demand.

 * Should it be extension in demand and contraction in demand, or extension in supply and contraction in supply? The demand is changing, and causing the price to change, which causes the quantity supplied to change.  What is the proper terminology here?  (I think at least one of the things above is wrong.  Jrincayc 02:05, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I had never heard the terms extension or contraction used like this, but to be consistent, if increase in the demand curve causes an extension in supply, the next paragraph referring to a decrease in the demand curve should be a contraction in supply. I made the change. - Taxman 11:51, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * I revised it to describe the curves shifting up and down as well as left and right. The comment at the end should probably be revised.Zengief

Elasticity
hmm, I'm stuck here. I don't have a textbook in front of me but I thought that when thinking of demand and supply functions as continuous functions that the elasticity was the first derivative of the function with respect to the variable in question. That would be the slope with respect to that variable. But looking at Elasticity (economics), shows that in the discrete formulation, that slope does not equal the elasticity. Is this just a question of the difference between the continuous approximation and the discrete formulation of demand and supply functions? Because if I think about the discrete example, its not the slope that matters its the change in slope, which would be akin to the second derivative in the continuous case. What gives? - Taxman 17:19, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Not quite the first derivative. It is the percentage change of quantity over the percentage change in the price.  If you think about a function with constant slope, the elasticity will be changing over the graph.  For example, with a demand function 10 - x, at quantity 1 to 2, and price 9 to 8, the elasticity is ((1-2)/2)/((9-8)/8) = -4.4, but at quantity 8 to 9, and price 2 to 1, the elasticity is ((8-9)/9)/((2-1)/1) = -0.11.  So elasticity is not slope.  A constant elasticity curve is of the form $$A*price^{elasticity} = quantity$$.

 * So this was incorrect: Using a representation of demand and supply as continuous functions, mathematically the elasticity is the first derivative of a function with respect to the variable in question. So the price elasticity of demand is the derivative of the demand function with respect to price.  Also the income elasticity of demand is the derivative of the demand function with repect to income, when the demand function is seen to include income as one of its components.  Jrincayc 02:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, that may be, but you're still thinking of the discrete formulation. In the limit as delta t -> 0, the % change/% change turns into the derivative I think.  And if I recall correctly that is the way I learned it in my economics classes. In any case the discrete formulation in the article is fine, but I attempted to generalize what you had written.  Your edits left the article to only apply to price elasticity.  Income elasticity represents a shift in the demand curve.  I made those edits, but now the section is choppy.  I'll try to fix it, or you can, but please make sure the intro stays general for all types of elasticity that would apply to supply and demand.  We need to also mention cross elasticity of demand I would think, which would warrant at least a mention of complement and substitute goods and how those effect supply and demand.  Otherwise, I think the article is very close to featured status. - Taxman 16:26, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * As the percentage change gets smaller, $$\frac{x/{\triangle x}}{y/{\triangle y}} \rightarrow \frac{x}{y}\frac{dy}{dx}$$ which is different from $$\frac{dy}{dx}$$. So, it is still not the derivative. The new elasticity section looks pretty good. Jrincayc 02:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I did that and now the section doesn't seem as choppy anyway to me. I think the section meets or exceeds what I was originally looking for. The last thing that would make the article great is if the oversupply diagram could have arrows on it on both sides pointing towards the equilibrium point. A second diagram with that next to the oversupply diagram would be even clearer. This would clarify the discussion of being away from the equilibrium and moving towards it, I think at least. - Taxman 18:11, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * How about DELETED IMAGE? Jrincayc 02:54, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I was thinking more from (P1,Qd) to (P,Q) and from (P1,Qs) also to (P,Q), showing both the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied approaching the equilibrium value as the price reduces. Maybe for clarity the arrow should be just adjacent to the line between those two points in each case. - Taxman 16:33, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Okay: [[Image:Oversupply price to eql.png]] (reload the page if need be). Jrincayc 03:20, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Looks good to me. Put that right next to the oversupply diagram and I think it will be good. - Taxman 12:10, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I'm just being picky, two more arrows showing the oversupply reducing to the equilibrium for supply would make it even better I'd think. Right above the oversupply arrows. - Taxman 16:34, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Colored images
How about colored images instead? E.g. like this: Or would this only make things worse, for those with b/w monitors? ;) - Fredrik | talk 13:20, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * To me, those without color support are not a reason to not make an improvement. The color does make them easier to see. - Taxman 16:34, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * It seems an improvement to me, both in clarity and general eye-candyness. — Matt 23:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I also prefer to see some colour. Just one caveat: When labour economics was a candidate for Feature Article status, it started with colour diagrams, but we had to remove the colour because there was an objection. mydogategodshat 02:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Some people will object either way. Best thing to do is to have the color diagram but have one of the lines have dashes in it so that even if it was printed b+w, the distinction could still be made. - Taxman 11:57, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

There's something to be said for color, but not the legend as shown here. You have to keep referring to the bottom, it's actually more confusing. Better to use supply and demand, on the graph itself - as used in the article now. As far as dashes, etc - there's a standard in economics education, it's better to get people used to that. flux.books 14:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Getting Supply and Demand to Featured Article Level
Here is the discussion from the first attempt at getting the article to featured level:

First Attempt
Self nomination. This article is probably one of the most linked economics article, and I believe it to be high quality. Jrincayc 02:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) Could someone summarize any remaining objections, if there are any. I have lost track. mydogategodshat 20:28, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * object, the section on elasticity is fairly central to supply and demand theory, and so far I have added only a section heading. Other than that I think it is a pretty good article.  I will try to add at least a start at the elasticity section, which may be a bit of a challenge since the Elasticity (economics) article is not all that well developed. - Taxman 17:35, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I edited (err, mostly rewrote) the section on elasticity in the article. Take a look at it.  Jrincayc 21:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mostly like those changes, needs just a bit more, see Talk:Supply and demand I think it just needs a diagram showing movement towards the equilibrium point which is pretty central to market economics and supply and demand theory. I fully support. - Taxman 16:31, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. 1) Some of the writing on the graphs is really hard to read; the font needs to be a bit larger, or something. 2) The graphs could also benefit from being in colour (seven black and white graphs need livening up a bit, and colour would add to the clarity, rather than using different line styles). 3) The graphs could also do with some copyright information; are they PD, GFDL, Fair Use, etc? 4) I don't understand half the arrows on the third graph. 5) The fourth graph has a stray pixel floating in the middle of it (*cough* nitpicking)...etc. Executive summary: I'm not so keen on the illustrations ;-) — Matt 21:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) GFDL. Feel free to upload new versions. I may get around to uploading new versions later.  Jrincayc 02:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I've started working on new versions, I have one for the first image in the set here. Fredrik | talk 02:12, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * That's spot on, cheers. — Matt 02:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * There are several supply and demand topics in most intro micro textbooks that are not included. They are: the detrminants of demand; the determinants of supply, construction of a demand curve from a demand schedule, construction of a supply curve from a long run average/marginal cost curve, and the distinction between the movment of a demand curve and movement along a demand curve. Intermediate micro textbooks include compensated demand curves. My question is, "Should we include these topics?" They are all very important topics, but their inclusion might make the article too long. Any comments? mydogategodshat 04:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add any of that, but to me, this article should be aimed at the introductory level and any more advanced topics should be mentioned and summarized, but point to the more advanced article. Construction of the curves (more than is already in the discrete example) and compensated demand curves should clearly only have separate articles.  Movement along vs. shifts in the curves is nearly already covered, just some clairifcation on the distinction would be good. This article does not need to be an entire article on microeconomics - Taxman 14:11, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. I like this article and the subject matter, but (like many articles) it needs a lot of work; more concise writing, better layout, and more extensive cross-referencing.  Specifically:
 * Wikification: no red links on the first screen or in the intro, please. A few more links to other related economics, sociology, and philsophy articles would be useful, and could help make the article more concise.
 * What did you have in mind? The article has hundreds of links to other economics articles.  It is also in the category economics and has the admittedly awkward styleboxes at the bottom, all of which are designed to link the reader to other realated topics.  What sociology of philosphy articles would help if they were linked to?  I can't think of any.
 * 28 links, actually, + 6 new links in the 'see also' secion. (-:  That's good, but for such a central concept -- not only in economics, but as a societal meme -- a hundred might be better.  For instance, a history of the theory should link to the great philosophers and economists who hashed out the first versions of S&D.
 * Better use of bold and italics can help elucidate new concepts break up long paragraphs.
 * Done, where possible. (Lovely. Getting easier to read. Now it's easier to comment on content!  +sj + )
 * Layout & Format: This is hard to read!
 * The whole article? If so, then it may be because you are not familiar enough with the subject.  If in specific sections, where?
 * The mark of a great piece of science writing is hardly a prerequisite of familiarity with the subject. In this case, however, it is more the casual stringing together of S&D ideas without narrative arc, rather than the complexity of the subject matter, that makes it difficult to read.
 * More subsections and more concise paragraphs will help.
 * Again, where? There is only one subsection after the intro that contains more than one concept and that is the elasticity section. I'm not sure breaking that up would better it.
 * Perhaps I should say, "better use of subsections". There don't need to be more than 4 or 5 major sections to the article; some of the sections could be dropped down a level, to clarify what is central and what is explication.  Also, slightly more content within major sections, providing more context and greater parallelism with other sections, would help.
 * The double-navtable at the end of the article feels heavy and out of place (after the external links would be better, or right-aligned so text can flow by it), and the second table takes up way too much space. Try to combine the two into a single set of navlinks, with a coherent style.
 * Those are the standard economics navtables, I suppose they could be removed and leave only the category link. But economics categories are not yet well developed.
 * Well, double-navtables should be avoided. It's a matter of layout, not content; almost all of the links from one of those navtables are in the "see also" section; that on could be done away with.  And the other table could be turned into a borderless div at the end, more in line with the look of the rest of the page, or a right-floating set of links at the top of the article. +sj +
 * Images should be smaller, but with large crisp text (current text size is fine; make crisper). Text should wrap around the images.   Add image alt text.  Use images to improve layout, not to disrupt it; label images and refer to "Image 2" rather than inserting an image as its own paragraph. A bit of color wouldn't hurt, either; say 1 or 2 small non-graph images somewhat related to supply and demand added near the start and end of the article.
 * Good ideas, others seem to be working on that.
 * Cross references: only one external link for such a central concept? 8-10 seems more appropriate.
 * I'll look for more.
 * Content: Use shorter and clearer examples.
 * What did you have in mind? The discrete example is central to the buildup of supply and demand curves and how they actually work.  Shortening or removing it would weaken the article.
 * The discrete example, if you will excuse my saying so, could be improved. Firstly, it should explain clearly what it means to be "at a market" -- why doesn't someone buy a sack at $12 as soon as it is offered?  why isn't the set of buyers & sellers maximizing the number of transactions made?  Secondly, it uses a discrete model but doesn't explain that the S&D equilibrium changes (discretely) after each purchase in such a model.  If one sack is sold at a time, then the equilibrium price of the 2d sack will be different...
 * Unify use of "dollars" and "$"; "$24 dollars" is redundant.
 * Done. - Taxman 00:03, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * +sj + 05:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick responses! FAC is one of the few boundary-condition ways of maintaining standards across the project; as a result some of the standard concerns here may seem petty in comparison with the great effort that goes into the content of a fine article, but they are important.
 * Please add history of the idea, competing theories of default allocation, and further explanation of perfect competition (definition/link to "commodity" & indistinguishable goods, perfect information, supply/demand stable over the period of time required for equilibration). +sj +
 * Definition of "supply" needs work -- by the definition you list (long-run cost) supply should jump steeply from 0 to infinity around the long-run cost of production. Why, if a company can produce 1 million chips for $1 each, would they not produce as many as the market will buy? +sj +
 * Long run cost only jumps steeply from 0 to infinity if all the input goods also do that. All the input goods only jump steeply from 0 to infinity if all the input input goods do.  ... Since at some point, the earth is finite (ditto for the universe) ultimatly some of the input goods are going to have upward sloping supply curves, so long run supply curves tend to be upward sloping, not completely elastic.  Jrincayc 13:21, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Remaining Work
I think that the only remaining work from the above is working on the history section (I just started one, but I don't know that much about the topic), and working on the diagrams (which Fredrik is working on). Is there anything else that needs to be done before this is resubmitted to featured articles? Jrincayc 15:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * mydogategodshat had a number of comments that he never followed up on and seemed to have lost track of. He mentioned many topics in economics texts are not covered in the article, including: "the detrminants of demand; the determinants of supply, construction of a demand curve from a demand schedule, construction of a supply curve from a long run average/marginal cost curve, and the distinction between the movment of a demand curve and movement along a demand curve. Intermediate micro textbooks include compensated demand curves." -- I felt that some of these were already covered and others were not appropriate for the article. As noted above, this article does not need to be an entire microeconomics article.  But mention of these concepts with summaries and links to the full articles on them could make the article more comprehensive. Taxman 22:51, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * On your advice, I decided not to go into these topics in detail. Instead I added one sentence on the likely determinants of demand and one on the typical determinants of supply. I also linked the idea of demand to demand schedule and to demand curve. I mentioned the connection between costs and supply. I did not include compensated demand curves feeling that they are too advanced for an introductory article. I then edited the article with the aim of making it more understandable to the non-economist. For now that is all I have time for because I am working on strategic management. mydogategodshat 17:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Other suggestions for improvement (summarized from above) are:
 * better transitions between sections and how they fit in ("narrative arc")
 * less major subsections. drop some of the subtopics down a level to group ideas properly
 * removal of the double navtable at the end and/or combination into one
 * more external links to standard sources, perhaps a bibliography of standard works
 * improvements to the discrete example for clarity and correctness (what does it mean to be "at a market", ie why would the first willing person not buy at the lowest price any producer is willing to sell for?

 * - Taxman 22:51, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm, Maybe I've found a simpler solution to my problem ;) I've added a sentence in the header Psychobabble 01:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Diagrams wanted
I am temporarily without my graphics program and would like to add a couple of diagrams to this article. Can anyone create them for me?

I have re-read the article and now agree with the person that complained about the lack of narrative arc. (I don't know why I didn't see it before. Maybe I just needed to get away from the article for a couple of months.) I plan on restructuring the article a bit (moving some paragraphs around) and add a bit more basics. I would like to have three simple diagrams made if someone can draw them.
 * 1) A straight line demand curve with a slope of 2:1 labeled D=100-2Q. Where it crosses the price axis please label it 100. On the line draw a small triangle indicating the rise and the run and identify them as 2 and 1 respectively.
 * 2) A straight line supply curve with a slope of 3:1 labeled S=5+3Q. Where it crosses the price axis please label it 5. On the line draw a small triangle indicating the rise and the run and identify them as 3 and 1 respectively.
 * 3) Combine the above supply and demand curve into one diagram. Label the demand curve D=100-2Q and label the supply curve S=5+3Q. At the pint of intersection draw a line accross to the price axis and label it 62. Also draw a line down from the equilibrium point to the quantity axis and label it 19.

You can also check my math if you wish. I did the calculations without a calculator : not a prescription for accuracy in this cerebelum.

100-2Q=5+3Q  95=5Q  19=Q  P=100-2(19) P=62

Thanks, mydogategodshat 17:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Boston link
The Boston link could do with updating to point to the appropriate Boston article, but I'm not sure which it is. --John 23:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Error?
The article states:

''Another way to view this is that the supply curve moves up and down as opposed to left and right (respectively). If the ability to produce increases as compared to a steady price, the supply shifts up (as opposed to left). If the ability to produce decreases, the supply curve shifts down (as opposed to right).''

Isn't this backwards? Doesn't the supply curve shift down/right when the ability to produce increases?
 * Yes, you are correct, the wording was wrong. Fixing the wording makes that way of thinking counterintuitive and not very helpful I think, so I removed it. Correcting it so it says "If the ability to produce increases as compared to a steady price, the supply curve shifts down (as opposed to right)", the wording opposed is also very confusing. The paragraph also didn't make clear if it was referring to the ability to produce increasing at all prices evenly (parallel shift in the curve) or changing different for different prices (changing the slope of the curve). - Taxman Talk 17:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of text by 203.115.78.38
203.115.78.38, you seem to be removing a lot of text from the article, and you seem to be doing it with more care than the usual vandal. The article is overly long, and could probably be split into seperate pages or some such. I have no objection to you splitting the article, however, please make it clear that you are doing such in the edit summarys. Also, if you wish to make edits of that magnitude, it would greatly help if you got a user account so it is easier to discuss your changes. I have reverted your edits largely because they are removing text and because they are unexplained. Thank you. Jrincayc 14:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Visualizing the kind of issues that would have come up from both sides of the negotiation table and the factors, which could have titled the decision in favour of the milk cooperatives
Pourmilk Dairies is known for its quality dairy products. It meets most of its need of milk - the basic ingredient for its products from milk cooperatives situated nearby as transportation of milk over longer distances is not possible, given the quality of transportation facilities. Pourmilk Dairies is satisfied with the quality of milk and regularity of supply of these cooperatives. However, the milk supply in the spot market lacks quality and reliability and its prices are also volatile. Pourmilk Dairies turns to spot market for meeting any deficit in supply or for selling any surplus supplies of milk. Conventionally, the major producers of dairy products in the region [including Pourmilk Dairies] and the major milk cooperatives sit down once in every year to negotiate the price of milk for the next year. Till now, the arrangement worked well. Lately the milk cooperatives have started feeling that such a pricing agreement work to their disadvantage as it does not reflect the "market-sensitiveness" for their product. The major cooperatives are, therefore demanding change in the "period of agreement" from once a year too every sixty days. Since the current projections of demand and supply of milk suggest that milk prices will go up in the near future, such a change in the period of agreement cannot be obviously liked by Pourmilk Dairies. After a round of negotiations between Pourmilk Dairies and the major milk cooperatives an agreement is reached to change in the price agreement period from annual to quarter.

How to Visualize the kind of issues that would have come up from both sides of the negotiation table and the factors, which could have titled the decision in favour of the milk cooperatives
Pourmilk Dairies is known for its quality dairy products. It meets most of its need of milk - the basic ingredient for its products from milk cooperatives situated nearby as transportation of milk over longer distances is not possible, given the quality of transportation facilities. Pourmilk Dairies is satisfied with the quality of milk and regularity of supply of these cooperatives. However, the milk supply in the spot market lacks quality and reliability and its prices are also volatile. Pourmilk Dairies turns to spot market for meeting any deficit in supply or for selling any surplus supplies of milk. Conventionally, the major producers of dairy products in the region [including Pourmilk Dairies] and the major milk cooperatives sit down once in every year to negotiate the price of milk for the next year. Till now, the arrangement worked well. Lately the milk cooperatives have started feeling that such a pricing agreement work to their disadvantage as it does not reflect the "market-sensitiveness" for their product. The major cooperatives are, therefore demanding change in the "period of agreement" from once a year too every sixty days. Since the current projections of demand and supply of milk suggest that milk prices will go up in the near future, such a change in the period of agreement cannot be obviously liked by Pourmilk Dairies. After a round of negotiations between Pourmilk Dairies and the major milk cooperatives an agreement is reached to change in the price agreement period from annual to quarter.

Software
Does supply and demand theory hold good for software?
 * To the extent that the assumptions of the theory hold, yes. To the extent that they don't, no. So some cases in the software markets, say game software, the assumptions may hold reasonably well if not perfectly. Others such as operating sytems they probably don't hold at all. - Taxman Talk 11:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

definitions of demand and supply
The definitions of demand and supply don't make much of a distinction between demand and quantity demanded. Demand is represented by the whole demand curve. A single point on the curve would be quantity demanded.

I haven't written that very clearly. That's why I haven't edited. If I come up with a better way to say it I will edit.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? who wrote this article anyways?

Demand represents the quantity of goods or services consumers will buy at EVERY price level, not at a given price as stated in this article. essentially demand is refering to the demand curve and each point on that curve represents the QUANTITY of a good that consumers will DEMAND at the corresponding price level, all other variables held constant. ---this distinction really needs to be made in the definitions explaining the law of supply and the law of demand directly would probably help. the explanation is in there but not really specified or emphasized

Demand curve shifts

"When more people want something, the quantity demanded at all prices will tend to increase. This can be referred to as an increase in demand. The increase in demand could also come from changing tastes, where the same consumers desire more of the same good than they previously did"

ok first of all, this doesn't explain increases in demand. in fact the opening statement describes only one of the factors that causes the demand curve to shift--which is number of buyers. there also needs to be a single explanation distinguishing changes in demand and quantity demanded: what makes the demand curve shift and what causes movements along the demand curve. what's the point of including demand curve shifts with out properly explaining the determinants of those shifts?

"An example of this would be more people suddenly wanting more coffee. This will cause the demand curve to shift from the initial curve D0 to the new curve D1"

this is a weak and vague example--If demand increases ofcourse that means people want more coffee, the question is what causes those increases?

most of these concepts are assumptions--how about adding that these assumptions will occur if all other variables are held constant. 'ceteris paribus' does that ring a bell? otherwise these statements are wrong. example: changes in the price level will cause movements along the supply curve, all other things the same

because of these discrepancies, this article does more harm than good, and also diminshes its own credibility as a valid source of information regarding supply and demand. basic concepts are left out or misconstrued, and the explanations of supply/demand conflict with other statements in the article.

I've fixed the definition of supply, which I thought was slightly inaccurate, and I've expanded on the "special cases of supply" section. I've also moved the sections about special cases of supply and demand up below their respective setions (supply and demand) to add continuity to the article. Their inclusion as something of a footnote at the end of the entry made the entire article feel a bit chopped up IMO. Jackson744 19:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Well I can't even tell if this is all comments from you in this section due to the formatting, but I've removed some of the recent additions because they are speculative and aren't backed up with Reliable sources. Here's my diff so the removal is clear and the material isn't lost. Copy it all into the talk page if you wish to justify it's inclusion. Your comments above are reasonably correct, but don't necessarily lead to a more understandable article. - Taxman Talk 22:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of this article with Encyclopedia Britannica
Hello, I'm currently doing a dissertation on Wikipedia for my MSc, and I have been conducting reviews of articles in Wikipedia in comparison with Encyclopedia Britannica. I did one on this article and thought I should post the results; so that the article may be improved based on my views, and so I may receive some feedback on my opinions. I hope my observations may assist in improving the overall quality of the article. ps the tables are not appearing properly in the actual page although they look fine in the editing section. If you read it though the results are discussed anyway.

- Comparison of Supply and Demand Articles

The Wikipedia article on Supply and Demand was taken on 15/07/06 and can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supply_and_demand&oldid=63304677, while the Britannica article can be found at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9070416. This particular topic is one in which Wikipedia’s article is a featured article, a concept we discussed earlier. Supposedly this article is among the best Wikipedia has to offer, and we shall now see if this is the case. The lengths of the featured articles tend to be longer than many of the standard entries, at least the ones we have been selecting to analyse. For this reason the topic chosen is one the author is familiar with, having studied it at degree level. This will make the analysis simpler, quicker, and more reliable to perform.

Comparing the Statistics

Source	       Words Spelling Grammar Misleading  Factual  Opinionated Omissions Wikipedia	4814	 0	 5	  0	       0	0	     0 Britannica	675	 0	 0	  0	       0        0            0

Once again we see that the Wikipedia article is considerably longer than Britannica’s. This time the article is more than 7 times longer. In all bar the grammatical errors columns, both articles are equal with zero. In the grammatical errors count, Wikipedia has five compared with Britannica’s zero. Some of the errors in Wikipedia are quite obvious and should not be in an article considered the best Wikipedia has to offer. One sentence in the article reads; “If they do not move at all then they will stay in the middle where they already are.” Errors like this are not found in a well witten document. These statistics, and Wikipedia’s grammatical errors, are only part of the story though.

Discussion of Scope

Both articles cover the topic of Supply and Demand well, both talking about the supply curve, the demand curve, the equilibrium between the two, elasticity of the supply and demand curves and other applications of elasticity such as income elasticity and cross-elasticity of demand. Wikipedia discusses special cases of the supply and demand curves, the vertical supply curve, other market forms, history of supply and demand theory, and criticism of the current theory, which is not discussed in Britannica. Wikipedia only discusses the applications of the theory and the circular relationship between production, income, and final demand.

The common material between the articles provides a good overview of the subject area. Some of Wikipedia’s extra material is again beyond the scope of the topic. Other market forms has nothing to do with this subject, the history of the theory would be better suited to a separate article, and the alternative theories discussed in the criticism of supply and demand should be at most a link to other articles. Yet again we see that Wikipedia has a greater breadth and depth of scope, but the multiple writers issue again means that there is too much in the article.

Discussion of Overall Quality

We have already noted that there are several grammatical errors in the Wikipedia article. With the exception of these mistakes the quality of writing is very good, as is the quality of writing by Britannica. Both are written in a style similar to most economic textbooks; very formal, un-opinionated and easy to understand. In terms of conciseness, Britannica wins hands down in this instance. The word count alone illustrates both how much longer Wikipedia takes to explain a point, and how much more material is covered. One specific example in this case is a worked example Wikipedia gives entitled “Supply and Demand in a 6 Person Economy”, that is 742 words long and doesn’t contribute much to the entry.

As with previous articles, Wikipedia benefits from the use of subheadings and a table of contents, giving the article the edge in terms of structure and readability. Again Britannica’s article is just the one piece of text with no subheadings to break it up. On the other hand Britannica’s entry is well ordered, to the point and better written. Wikipedia has several errors other than grammatical errors which detract from its overall quality. A couple examples of this are repetition with the definitions of supply and demand and the attempted use of an example which merely throws the word “coffee” into a sentence for no apparent reason. Also towards the end of the article, it starts to sound more disjointed with small points seemingly bolted on just for the sake of adding more content.

A final point we shall consider in this part of our discussion is the use of visual aids by Wikipedia, specifically the use of graphs to explain the concepts of supply and demand, shifts in supply and demand, and elasticity. This is something that the majority of Economics textbooks and learning resources would use to illustrate their discussions, as graphs are an integral part of the field of Economics. It is one area where Wikipedia definitely outperforms Britannica, who do not use visual aids at all. It is a useful feature of Wikipedia, that users when editing articles can also include images as part of their edits.

Conclusion

Below is the table with the final comparisons of the articles on Supply and Demand;

Factor	Winner Quality of Writing	Britannica Structure	       Britannica Accuracy	       Equal Breadth of Article	Wikipedia Depth of Article	Wikipedia Appropriate Focus	Britannica

The results in the above criteria for this article are the same as with the previous articles on Pelè, although this does not mean we are reaching the same verdict. It is true that with the number of grammatical and structural errors we cannot award Wikipedia with victory in these categories. Neither article has and obvious errors. Once again we see that Wikipedia has a greater breadth and depth of discussion, but again struggles with the appropriateness of the material it covers. Overall Wikipedia’s range and detail of discussion, along with its inclusion of graphs to illustrate points makes it difficult to say which article is better. There is not much to choose between the two, and in this case, although there are great differences between the articles, neither is considered the superior. Additionally the potential of the Wikipedia article is that it could become easily the better of the two with some editing. -

Assistance
I'm writing a small section into the FairTax article (currently titled Value of used goods) that contains aspects of supply and demand in relation to the value / cost of used goods in comparison to new goods with the FairTax applied. I thought this section could use some expertise from the editors of this article. I currently do not have any references and just a brief explanation. Thank You Morphh (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Serious Question
The stuff about how supply and demand would work within highly competitive markets with egoistical rational people and how reality (monopolies, oligopolies) diverts from that doesn't make sense to me. When I look at these curves and imagine everybody to give in as little as one must I only see degrees of monopoly at work there. The side that is less monopoly-like (or monopsony or whatever) gets screwed. To make it more clear: I view artificial scarce products made by scheming humans with intent as well as raw materials that are naturally scarce as having monopoly-likeliness.

What is wrong with my view? --R.H. 19:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Supply and demand/Archive 1


text:
Coins of the pound sterling

The standard circulating coinage of the United Kingdom, British Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories is denominated in pennies and pounds sterling (symbol "£", commercial GBP), and ranges in value from one penny sterling to two pounds. Since decimalisation, on 15 February 1971, the pound has been divided into 100 pence (minted on coins as new until 1981). Before decimalisation, twelve pence made a shilling, and twenty shillings made a pound.

British coins are minted by the Royal Mint in Llantrisant, Wales. The Royal Mint also commissions the coins' designs however they also have to be accepted by the reigning monarch.

In addition to the circulating coinage, the UK also mints commemorative decimal coins (crowns : A British coin that was worth 25 pence before decimalisation and commemorative after ; before 1947 it was struck in 500. Silver and cupro nike afterwards in 1969) in the denomination of five pounds, ceremonial Maundy money in the denomination of 1, 2, 3 and 4 pence ( in certain colonies they used 1 1/2 pence) struck in sterling silver (.925 purity)and bullion coinage of gold sovereigns, half sovereigns, and gold and silver Britannia coins are also produced. Some territories outside the United Kingdom, which use the pound sterling, produce their own coinage, with the same denominations and specifications as the UK coinage but with local designs that are not legal tender in the mainland United Kingdom.

Currently circulating coinage
The current decimal coins consist of:

 * one penny and two pence in copper-plated steel
 * five pence and ten pence in nickel-plated steel
 * equilateral curve heptagonal twenty pence and fifty pence in cupronickel
 * bimetallic one pound and two pounds.

All circulating coins have an effigy of one of two monarchs on the obverse; various national, regional and commemorative designs on the reverse; and the denomination in numbers or words.
 * Elizabeth II: The obverse carries an abbreviated Latin inscription whose full form,, translates to "Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith". The denomination is usually on the reverse.
 * Charles III: The obverse carries an abbreviated, anglicised Latin inscription whose full form,, translates to "Charles III, by the grace of God, King and Defender of the Faith". The denomination may be on either side.

Production and distribution
All genuine UK coins are produced by the Royal Mint. The same coinage is used across the United Kingdom: unlike banknotes, local issues of coins are not produced for different parts of the UK. The pound coin until 2016 was produced in regional designs, but these circulate equally in all parts of the UK (see UK designs, below).

Every year, newly minted coins are checked for size, weight, and composition at a Trial of the Pyx. Essentially the same procedure has been used since the 13th century. Assaying is now done by the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths on behalf of HM Treasury.

The 1p and 2p coins from 1971 are the oldest standard-issue coins still in circulation. Pre-decimal crowns are the oldest coins in general that are still legal tender, although they are in practice never encountered in general circulation.

Coins from the British dependencies and territories that use sterling as their currency are sometimes found in change in other jurisdictions. Strictly, they are not legal tender in the United Kingdom; however, since they have the same specifications as UK coins, they are sometimes tolerated in commerce, and can readily be used in vending machines.

UK-issued coins are, on the other hand, generally fully accepted and freely mixed in other British dependencies and territories that use the pound.

An extensive coinage redesign was commissioned by the Royal Mint in 2005, and new designs were gradually introduced into the circulating British coinage from summer 2008. Except for the £1 coin, the pre-2008 coins remain legal tender and are expected to stay in circulation for the foreseeable future.

The estimated volume in circulation as at March 2016 is:

History of pre-decimal coinage
Because of trade links with Charlemagne's Frankish Empire, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms copied the Frankish currency system of 12 deniers ("d", pennies) to the sou (shilling) and 240 deniers or 20 sous to the libra ("£", pound), the origin of the name of the current British currency. It referred to the literal weight of 240 penny coins, which at 30 grains each, weighed 1 tower pound of sterling (0.925 fine) silver. At this point and for centuries, pennies were the only coins struck; shillings and pounds were only units of account.

The penny before 1500
The English silver penny first appeared in the 8th century CE in adoption of Western Europe's Carolingian monetary system wherein 12 pence made a shilling and 20 shillings made a pound. The weight of the English penny was fixed at $22 1/2$ troy grains (about 1.46 grams) by Offa of Mercia, an 8th-century contemporary of Charlemagne; 240 pennies weighed 5,400 grains or a tower pound (different from the troy pound of 5,760 grains). The silver penny was the only coin minted for 500 years, from c. 780 to 1280.

From the time of Charlemagne until the 12th century, the silver currency of England was made from the highest purity silver available. But there were disadvantages to minting currency of fine silver, notably the level of wear it suffered, and the ease with which coins could be "clipped", or trimmed. In 1158 a new standard for English coinage was established by Henry II with the "Tealby Penny" – the sterling silver standard of 92.5% silver and 7.5% copper. This was a harder-wearing alloy, yet it was still a rather high grade of silver. It went some way towards discouraging the practice of "clipping", though this practice was further discouraged and largely eliminated with the introduction of the milled edge seen on coins today.

The weight of a silver penny stayed constant at above 22 grains until 1344; afterwards its weight was reduced to 18 grains in 1351, to 15 grains in 1412, to 12 grains in 1464, and to 10$1/undefined$ grains in 1527.

The history of the Royal Mint stretches back to AD 886. For many centuries production was in London, initially at the Tower of London, and then at premises nearby in Tower Hill in what is today known as Royal Mint Court. In the 1970s production was transferred to Llantrisant in South Wales. Historically Scotland and England had separate coinage; the last Scottish coins were struck in 1709 shortly after union with England.

The penny after 1500
During the reign of Henry VIII, the silver content was gradually debased, reaching a low of one-third silver. However, in Edward VI's reign in 1551, this debased coinage was discontinued in favor of a return to sterling silver with the penny weighing 8 grains. The first crowns and half-crowns were produced that year. From this point onwards till 1920, sterling was the rule.

Coins were originally hand-hammered – an ancient technique in which two dies are struck together with a blank coin between them. This was the traditional method of manufacturing coins in the Western world from the classical Greek era onwards, in contrast with Asia, where coins were traditionally cast. Milled (that is, machine-made) coins were produced first during the reign of Elizabeth I (1558–1603) and periodically during the subsequent reigns of James I and Charles I, but there was initially opposition to mechanisation from the moneyers, who ensured that most coins continued to be produced by hammering. All British coins produced since 1662 have been milled.

By 1601 it was decreed that one troy ounce or 480 grains of sterling silver be minted into 62 pennies (i.e. each penny weighed 7.742 grains). By 1696, the currency had been seriously weakened by an increase in clipping during the Nine Years' War to the extent that it was decided to recall and replace all hammered silver coinage in circulation. The exercise came close to disaster due to fraud and mismanagement, but was saved by the personal intervention of Isaac Newton after his appointment as Warden of the Mint, a post which was intended to be a sinecure, but which he took seriously. Newton was subsequently given the post of Master of the Mint in 1699. Following the 1707 union between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, Newton used his previous experience to direct the 1707–1710 Scottish recoinage, resulting in a common currency for the new Kingdom of Great Britain. After 15 September 1709 no further silver coins were ever struck in Scotland.

As a result of a report written by Newton on 21 September 1717 to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury the bimetallic relationship between gold coins and silver coins was changed by Royal proclamation on 22 December 1717, forbidding the exchange of gold guineas for more than 21 silver shillings. Due to differing valuations in other European countries this unintentionally resulted in a silver shortage, as silver coins were used to pay for imports, while exports were paid for in gold, effectively moving Britain from the silver standard to its first gold standard, rather than the bimetallic standard implied by the proclamation.

The coinage reform of 1816 set up a weight/value ratio and physical sizes for silver coins. Each troy ounce of sterling silver was henceforth minted into 66 pence or 5$1/undefined$ shillings.

In 1920, the silver content of all British coins was reduced from 92.5% to 50%, with some of the remainder consisting of manganese, which caused the coins to tarnish to a very dark colour after they had been in circulation for long. Silver was eliminated altogether in 1947, except for Maundy coinage, which returned to the pre-1920 92.5% silver composition.

The 1816 weight/value ratio and size system survived the debasement of silver in 1920, and the adoption of token coins of cupronickel in 1947. It even persisted after decimalisation for those coins which had equivalents and continued to be minted with their values in new pence. The UK finally abandoned it in 1992 when smaller, more convenient, "silver" coins were introduced.

Decimalisation
Since decimalisation on 15 February 1971 the pound (symbol "£") has been divided into 100 pence. (Prior to decimalisation the pound was divided into 20 shillings, each of 12 [old] pence; thus, there were 240 [old] pence to the pound.) The pound remained as Britain's currency unit after decimalisation (unlike in many other British commonwealth countries, which dropped the pound upon decimalisation by introducing dollars or new units worth 10 shillings or $1/undefined$ pound). The following coins were introduced with these reverse designs:
 * Half penny, 1971–1984: A crown, symbolising the monarch.
 * One penny, 1971–2007: A crowned portcullis with chains (the badge of the Houses of Parliament).
 * Two pence, 1971–2007: The Prince of Wales's feathers: a plume of ostrich feathers within a coronet.
 * Five pence, 1968–2007: The Badge of Scotland, a thistle royally crowned.
 * Ten pence, 1968–2007: The lion of England royally crowned.
 * Fifty pence, 1969–2007: Britannia and lion.

The first decimal coins – the five pence (5p) and ten pence (10p) — were introduced in 1968 in the run-up to decimalisation in order to familiarise the public with the new system. These initially circulated alongside the pre-decimal coinage and had the same size and value as the existing one shilling and two shilling coins respectively. The fifty pence (50p) coin followed in 1969, replacing the old ten shilling note. The remaining decimal coins – at the time, the half penny ($1/undefined$p), penny (1p) and two pence (2p) — were issued in 1971 at decimalisation. A quarter-penny coin, to be struck in aluminium, was proposed at the time decimalisation was being planned, but was never minted.

The new coins were initially marked with the wording (singular) or  (plural). The word "new" was dropped in 1982. The symbol "p" was adopted to distinguish the new pennies from the old, which used the symbol "d" (from the Latin denarius, a coin used in the Roman Empire).

Updates 1982–1998
In the years since decimalisation, a number of changes have been made to the coinage; these new denominations were introduced with the following designs:
 * Twenty pence, 1982–2007: A crowned Tudor Rose, a traditional heraldic emblem of England (with incuse design and lettering).
 * One pound (round), 1983–2016: various designs; see One pound (British coin).
 * Two pounds, 1997–2014: An abstract design of concentric circles, representing technological development from the Iron Age to the modern-day electronic age.

Additionally:
 * The halfpenny was discontinued in 1984.
 * The composition of the 1p and 2p was changed in 1992 from bronze to copper-plated steel without changing the design.
 * The sizes of the 5p, 10p and 50p coins were reduced in 1990, 1992 and 1997, respectively, also without changing the design.

The twenty pence (20p) coin was introduced in 1982 to fill the gap between the 10p and 50p coins. The pound coin (£1) was introduced in 1983 to replace the Bank of England £1 banknote which was discontinued in 1984 (although the Scottish banks continued producing them for some time afterwards; the last of them, the Royal Bank of Scotland £1 note, is still issued in a small volume ). The designs on the £1 coin changed annually in a largely five-year cycle, until the introduction of the new 12-sided £1 coin in 2017.

The decimal halfpenny coin was demonetised in 1984 as its value was by then too small to be useful. The pre-decimal sixpence, shilling and two shilling coins, which had continued to circulate alongside the decimal coinage with values of $2 1/2$p, 5p and 10p respectively, were finally withdrawn in 1980, 1990 and 1993 respectively. The double florin and crown, with values of 20p and 25p respectively, have technically not been withdrawn, but in practice are never seen in general circulation.

In the 1990s, the Royal Mint reduced the sizes of the 5p, 10p, and 50p coins. As a consequence, the oldest 5p coins in circulation date from 1990, the oldest 10p coins from 1992 and the oldest 50p coins come from 1997. Since 1997, many special commemorative designs of 50p have been issued. Some of these are found fairly frequently in circulation and some are rare. They are all legal tender.

In 1992 the composition of the 1p and 2p coins was changed from bronze to copper-plated steel. Due to their high copper content (97%), the intrinsic value of pre-1992 1p and 2p coins increased with the surge in metal prices of the mid-2000s, until by 2006 the coins would, if melted down, have been worth about 50% more than their face value.

A circulating bimetallic two pound (£2) coin was introduced in 1998 (first minted in, and dated, 1997). There had previously been unimetallic commemorative £2 coins which did not normally circulate. This tendency to use the two pound coin for commemorative issues has continued since the introduction of the bimetallic coin, and a few of the older unimetallic coins have since entered circulation.

There are also commemorative issues of crowns. Until 1981, these had a face value of twenty-five pence (25p), equivalent to the five shilling crown used in pre-decimal Britain. However, in 1990 crowns were redenominated with a face value of five pounds (£5) as the previous value was considered not sufficient for such a high-status coin. The size and weight of the coin remained exactly the same. Decimal crowns are generally not found in circulation as their market value is likely to be higher than their face value, but they remain legal tender.

Obverse designs
All modern British coins feature a profile of the current monarch's head on the obverse. Until 2022, there had been only one monarch since decimalisation, Queen Elizabeth II, and her head appeared on all decimal coins minted up to that date, facing to the right (see also Monarch's profile, below). Five different effigies were used, reflecting the Queen's changing appearance as she aged. They were created by Mary Gillick (for coins minted until 1968), Arnold Machin (1968–1984), Raphael Maklouf (1985–1997), Ian Rank-Broadley (1998–2015), and Jody Clark (from 2015). In September 2022, the first portrait of Charles III was revealed, designed by Martin Jennings.

Most current coins carry a Latin inscription whose full form is, meaning "Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith". The inscription appears in any of several abbreviated forms, typically. Those minted and circulated after the accession of Charles III are inscribed with.

2008 redesign
In 2008, UK coins underwent an extensive redesign which eventually changed the reverse designs of all coins, the first wholesale change to British coinage since the first decimal coins were introduced in April 1968. The major design feature was the introduction of a reverse design shared across six coins (1p, 2p, 5p, 10p, 20p, 50p), that can be pieced together to form an image of the Royal Shield. This was the first time a coin design had been featured across multiple coins in this way. To summarize the reverse design changes made in 2008 and afterwards:
 * The 1p coin depicts the lower part of the first quarter and the upper part of the third quarter of the shield, showing the lions passant of England and the harp of Ireland respectively
 * The 2p coin depicts most of the second quarter of the shield, showing the lion rampant of Scotland
 * The 5p coin depicts the centre of the shield, showing the meeting and parts of the constituent parts of the shield
 * The 10p coin depicts most of the first quarter of the shield, containing the three lions passant of England
 * The 20p coin depicts the lower part of the second quarter and upper part of the fourth quarter, showing the lion rampant of Scotland and the lions passant of England respectively
 * The 50p coin depicts the point of the shield and the bottom portions of the second and third quarters showing the harp of Ireland and lions passant of England respectively
 * The round, nickel-brass £1 coin from 2008 to 2016 depicted the whole of the Royal Shield. From 2017 it was changed to a bimetallic 12-sided coin depicting a rose, leek, thistle and shamrock bound by a crown.
 * The £2 coin from 2015 depicts Britannia.

The original intention was to exclude both the £1 and £2 coins from the redesign because they were "relatively new additions" to the coinage, but it was later decided to include a £1 coin with a complete Royal Shield design from 2008 to 2016, and the 2015 redesign of the £2 coin occurred due to complaints over the disappearance of Britannia's image from the 50p coin in 2008.

On all coins, the beading (ring of small dots) around the edge of the obverses has been removed. The obverse of the 20p coin has also been amended to incorporate the year, which had been on the reverse of the coin since its introduction in 1982 (giving rise to an unusual issue of a mule version without any date at all). The orientation of both sides of the 50p coin has been rotated through 180 degrees, meaning the bottom of the coin is now a corner rather than a flat edge. The numerals showing the decimal value of each coin, previously present on all coins except the £1 and £2, have been removed, leaving the values spelled out in words only.

The redesign was the result of a competition launched by the Royal Mint in August 2005, which closed on 14 November 2005. The competition was open to the public and received over 4,000 entries. The winning entry was unveiled on 2 April 2008, designed by Matthew Dent. The Royal Mint stated the new designs were "reflecting a twenty-first century Britain". An advisor to the Royal Mint described the new coins as "post-modern" and said that this was something that could not have been done 50 years previously.

The redesign was criticised by some for having no specifically Welsh symbol (such as the Welsh Dragon), because the Royal Shield does not include a specifically Welsh symbol. Wrexham Member of Parliament (MP) Ian Lucas, who was also campaigning to have the Welsh Dragon included on the Union Flag, called the omission "disappointing", and stated that he would be writing to the Queen to request that the Royal Standard be changed to include Wales. The Royal Mint stated that "the Shield of the Royal Arms is symbolic of the whole of the United Kingdom and as such, represents Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland." Designer Dent stated "I am a Welshman and proud of it, but I never thought about the fact we did not have a dragon or another representation of Wales on the design because as far as I am concerned Wales is represented on the Royal Arms. This was never an issue for me."

The Royal Mint's choice of an inexperienced coin designer to produce the new coinage was criticised by Virginia Ironside, daughter of Christopher Ironside who designed the previous UK coins. She stated that the new designs were "totally unworkable as actual coins", due to the loss of a numerical currency identifier, and the smaller typeface used.

The German news magazine Der Spiegel claimed that the redesign signalled the UK's intention "not to join the euro any time soon".

Changes after 2008
As of 2012, 5p and 10p coins have been issued in nickel-plated steel, and much of the remaining cupronickel types withdrawn, in order to retrieve more expensive metals. The new coins are 11% thicker to maintain the same weight. There are heightened nickel allergy concerns over the new coins. Studies commissioned by the Royal Mint found no increased discharge of nickel from the coins when immersed in artificial sweat. However, an independent study found that the friction from handling results in four times as much nickel exposure as from the older-style coins. Sweden already plans to desist from using nickel in coins from 2015.

In 2016, the £1 coin's composition was changed from a single-metal round shape to a 12-sided bi-metal design, with a slightly larger diameter, and with multiple past designs discontinued in favor of a single, unchanging design. Production of the new coins started in 2016, with the first, dated 2016, entering circulation 28 March 2017.

In February 2015, the Royal Mint announced a new design for the £2 coin featuring Britannia by Antony Dufort, with no change to its bimetallic composition.

Edge inscriptions on British coins used to be commonly encountered on round £1 coins of 1983–2016, but are nowadays found only on £2 coins. The standard-issue £2 coin from 1997 to 2015 carried the edge inscription. The redesigned coin since 2015 has a new edge inscription, Latin for "I will claim the four seas", an inscription previously found on coins bearing the image of Britannia. Other commemorative £2 coins have their own unique edge inscriptions or designs.

2023 redesign
In October 2023 the Royal Mint announced new designs for the circulating coinage, which were to be released by the end of the year. The new designs feature a portrait of King Charles III facing left on the obverse, with a small Tudor Crown privy mark behind the Kings’ neck. The reverses are divided vertically, the leftmost third comprising a background of three interlocking “C”s, reminiscent of the interlocking C’s on the coins of King Charles II, and a large number indicating the value, countering criticism of the 2008 redesign’s lack of numeric values. The rightmost two-thirds of each design features an animal or plant representing each of the four nations:
 * 1p depicts the hazel dormouse.
 * 2p depicts the red squirrel.
 * 5p depicts English oak tree leaves and acorns.
 * 10p depicts a western capercaillie.
 * 20p depicts an Atlantic puffin.
 * 50p depicts an Atlantic salmon.
 * £1 depicts two bees.
 * £2 depicts the four heraldic flowers of the United Kingdom: Tudor rose, thistle, daffodil and shamrock, with the edge inscription, Latin for “In the service of all”, taken from the King's inaugural address on 9 September 2022.

Obsolete denominations
The following decimal coins have been withdrawn from circulation and have ceased to be legal tender.

* The specifications and dates of 5p, 10p, and 50p coins refer to the larger sizes issued since 1968.

† The specification refers to the round coin issued from 1983 to 2016. Although obsolete, this coin is still redeemable at banks and the British railway systems.

Circulating commemorative designs
Circulating fifty pence and two pound coins have been issued with various commemorative reverse designs, typically to mark the anniversaries of historical events or the births of notable people.

Three commemorative designs were issued of the large version of the 50p: in 1973 (the EEC), 1992–3 (EC presidency) and 1994 (D-Day anniversary). Commemorative designs of the smaller 50p coin have been issued (alongside the Britannia standard issue) in 1998 (two designs), 2000, and from 2003 to 2007 yearly (two designs in 2006). For a complete list, see Fifty pence (British decimal coin).

Prior to 1997, the two pound coin was minted in commemorative issues only – in 1986, 1989, 1994, 1995 and 1996. Commemorative £2 coins have been regularly issued since 1999, alongside the standard-issue bi-metallic coins which were introduced in 1997. One or two designs have been minted each year, with the exception of none in 2000, and four regional 2002 issues marking the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester. As well as a distinct reverse design, these coins have an edge inscription relevant to the subject. The anniversary themes are continued until at least 2009, with two designs announced. For a complete list, see Two pounds (British decimal coin).

From 2018 to 2019 a series of 10p coins with 26 different designs was put in circulation "celebrating Great Britain with The Royal Mint's Quintessentially British A to Z series of coins".

Non-circulating denominations

Coins are sometimes issued as special collectible commemorative versions, sold at a value higher than their face value. They are usually legal tender, but worth only their face value to pay debts. For example, in 2023 a 50 pence piece was announced, the first coin depicting King Charles III, and celebrating the fictional wizard Harry Potter. The standard version sells for £11 and a colour version for £20. Other versions range up to a gold coin of £200 face value, selling for £5,215.

The following are special-issue commemorative coins, seldom encountered in normal circulation due to their precious metal content or collectible value, but are still considered legal tender.
 * Twenty-five pence or crown (25p; £0.25), 1972–1981
 * Five pounds or crown (£5), 1990–present
 * Twenty pounds (£20), 2013–present
 * Fifty pounds (£50), 2015–2016
 * One hundred pounds (£100), 2015–2016

Legal tender status of commemorative coins
The prolific issuance since 2013 of silver commemorative £20, £50 and £100 coins at face value has led to attempts to spend or deposit these coins, prompting the Royal Mint to clarify the legal tender status of these silver coins as well as the cupronickel £5 coin. Legal tender has a very narrow legal meaning, related to paying into a court to satisfy a debt, and nobody is obliged to accept any particular form of payment (whether legal tender or not), including commemorative coins. Royal Mint guidelines advise that, although these coins were approved as legal tender, they are considered limited edition collectables not intended for general circulation.

Maundy money
Maundy money is a ceremonial coinage traditionally given to the poor, and nowadays awarded annually to deserving senior citizens. There are Maundy coins in denominations of one, two, three and four pence. They bear dates from 1822 to the present and are minted in very small quantities. Though they are legal tender in the UK, they are rarely or never encountered in circulation. The pre-decimal Maundy pieces have the same legal tender status and value as post-decimal ones, and effectively increased in face value by 140% upon decimalisation. Their numismatic value is much greater.

Maundy coins still bear the original portrait of the Queen as used in the circulating coins of the first years of her reign.

Bullion coinage
The traditional bullion coin issued by Britain is the gold sovereign, formerly a circulating coin worth 20 shillings (or one pound) and with 0.23542 ozt of fine gold, but now with a nominal value of one pound. The Royal Mint continues to produce sovereigns, as well as quarter sovereigns (introduced in 2009), half sovereigns, double sovereigns and quintuple sovereigns.

Between 1987 and 2012 a series of bullion coins, the Britannia, was issued, containing 1 troy ounce (31.1 g), $1/undefined$ ounce, $1/undefined$ ounce and $1/undefined$ ounce of fine gold at a millesimal fineness of 916 (22 carat) and with face values of £100, £50, £25, and £10.

Since 2013 Britannia bullion contains 1 troy ounce of fine gold at a millesimal fineness of 999 (24 carat).

Between 1997 and 2012 silver bullion coins have also been produced under the name "Britannias". The alloy used was Britannia silver (millesimal fineness 958). The silver coins were available in 1 troy ounce (31.1 g), $1/undefined$ ounce, $1/undefined$ ounce and $1/undefined$ ounce sizes. Since 2013 the alloy used is silver at a (millesimal fineness 999).

In 2016 the Royal Mint launched a series of 10 Queen's Beasts bullion coins, one for each beast available in both gold and silver.

The Royal Mint also issues silver, gold and platinum proof sets of the circulating coins, as well as gift products such as gold coins set into jewellery.

Non-UK coinage
Outside the United Kingdom, the British Crown Dependencies of Jersey and Guernsey use the pound sterling as their currencies. However, they produce local issues of coinage in the same denominations and specifications, but with different designs. These circulate freely alongside UK coinage and English, Northern Irish, and Scottish banknotes within these territories, but must be converted in order to be used in the UK. The island of Alderney also produces occasional commemorative coins. (See coins of the Jersey pound, coins of the Guernsey pound, and Alderney pound for details.). The Isle of Man is a unique case among the Crown Dependencies, issuing its own currency, the Manx pound. While the Isle of Man recognises the Pound Sterling as a secondary currency, coins of the Manx pound are not legal tender in the UK.

The pound sterling is also the official currency of the British overseas territories of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, British Antarctic Territory and Tristan da Cunha. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands produces occasional special collectors' sets of coins. In 2008, British Antarctic Territory issued a £2 coin commemorating the centenary of Britain's claim to the region.

The currencies of the British overseas territories of Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and Saint Helena/Ascension — namely the Gibraltar pound, Falkland Islands pound and Saint Helena pound — are pegged one-to-one to the pound sterling but are technically separate currencies. These territories issue their own coinage, again with the same denominations and specifications as the UK coinage but with local designs, as coins of the Gibraltar pound, coins of the Falkland Islands pound and coins of the Saint Helena pound.

The other British overseas territories do not use sterling as their official currency.

System
Before decimalisation in 1971, the pound was divided into 240 pence rather than 100, though it was rarely expressed in this way. Rather it was expressed in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, where:

 * £1 = 20 shillings (20s).
 * 1 shilling = 12 pence (12d).

Thus: £1 = 240d. The penny was further subdivided at various times, though these divisions vanished as inflation made them irrelevant:

 * 1 penny = 2 halfpennies and (earlier) 4 farthings (half farthing, a third of a farthing, and quarter farthing coins were minted in the late 19th century, and into the early 20th century in the case of the third farthing, but circulated only in certain British colonies and not in the UK).

Using the example of five shillings and sixpence, the standard ways of writing shillings and pence were:
 * 5s 6d
 * 5/6
 * 5/- for 5 shillings only, with the dash to stand for zero pennies.

The sum of 5/6 would be spoken as "five shillings and sixpence" or "five and six".

The abbreviation for the old penny, d, was derived from the Roman denarius, and the abbreviation for the shilling, s, from the Roman solidus. The shilling was also denoted by the slash symbol, also called a solidus for this reason, which was originally an adaptation of the long s. The symbol "£", for the pound, is derived from the first letter of the Latin word for pound, libra.

A similar pre-decimal system operated in France, also based on the Roman currency, consisting of the livre (L), sol or sou (s) and denier (d). Until 1816 another similar system was used in the Netherlands, consisting of the gulden (G), stuiver (s; $1/undefined$ G) and duit, (d; $1/undefined$ s or $1/undefined$ G).

Denominations
In the years just prior to decimalisation, the circulating British coins were:

The farthing ($1/undefined$d) had been demonetised on 1 January 1961, whilst the crown (5/-) was issued periodically as a commemorative coin but rarely found in circulation.

The crown, half crown, florin, shilling, and sixpence were cupronickel coins (in historical times silver or silver alloy); the penny, halfpenny, and farthing were bronze; and the threepence was a twelve-sided nickel-brass coin (historically it was a small silver coin).

Some of the pre-decimalisation coins with exact decimal equivalent values continued in use after 1971 alongside the new coins, albeit with new names (the shilling became equivalent to the 5p coin, with the florin equating to 10p), and the others were withdrawn almost immediately. The use of florins and shillings as legal tender in this way ended in 1991 and 1993 when the 5p and 10p coins were replaced with smaller versions. Indeed, while pre-decimalisation shillings were used as 5p coins, for a while after decimalisation many people continued to call the new 5p coin a shilling, since it remained $1/undefined$ of a pound, but was now counted as 5p (five new pence) instead of 12d (twelve old pennies). The pre-decimalisation sixpence, also known as a sixpenny bit or sixpenny piece, was equivalent to $1/undefined$p, but was demonetised in 1980.

Slang and everyday usage
Some pre-decimalisation coins or denominations became commonly known by colloquial and slang terms, perhaps the most well known being bob for a shilling, and quid for a pound. A farthing was a mag, a silver threepence was a joey and the later nickel-brass threepence was called a threepenny bit ( or bit, i.e. thrup'ny or threp'ny bit – the apostrophe was pronounced on a scale from full "e" down to complete omission); a sixpence was a tanner, the two-shilling coin or florin was a two-bob bit. Bob is still used in phrases such as "earn/worth a bob or two", and "bob‐a‐job week". The two shillings and sixpence coin or half-crown was a half-dollar, also sometimes referred to as two and a kick. A value of two pence was universally pronounced tuppence, a usage which is still heard today, especially among older people. The unaccented suffix "-pence", pronounced, was similarly appended to the other numbers up to twelve; thus "fourpence", "sixpence-three-farthings", "twelvepence-ha'penny", but "eighteen pence" would usually be said "one-and-six".

Quid remains as popular slang for one or more pounds to this day in Britain in the form "a quid" and then "two quid", and so on. Similarly, in some parts of the country, bob continued to represent one-twentieth of a pound, that is five new pence, and two bob is 10p.

The introduction of decimal currency caused a new casual usage to emerge, where any value in pence is spoken using the suffix pee: e.g. "twenty-three pee" or, in the early years, "two-and-a-half pee" rather than the previous "tuppence-ha'penny". Amounts over a pound are normally spoken thus: "five pounds forty". A value with less than ten pence over the pound is sometimes spoken like this: "one pound and a penny", "three pounds and fourpence". The slang term "bit" has almost disappeared from use completely, although in Scotland a fifty pence is sometimes referred to as a "ten bob bit". Decimal denomination coins are generally described using the terms piece or coin, for example, "a fifty-pee piece", a "ten-pence coin".

Monarch's profile
All coins since the late 17th century have featured a profile of the current monarch's head. The direction in which they face changes with each successive monarch, a pattern that began with the Stuarts, as shown in the table below:

For the Tudors and the Stuarts up to and including Charles II, both left- and right-facing portrait images were minted within the reign of a single monarch (left-facing images were more common), together with equestrian portraits on certain coins and (earlier) full face portrait images. In the Middle Ages, portrait images tended to be full face.

There was a small quirk in this alternating pattern when Edward VIII became king in January 1936 and was portrayed facing left, the same as his predecessor George V. This was because Edward thought his left side to be better than his right. However, Edward VIII abdicated in December 1936 and his coins were never put into general circulation. When George VI came to the throne, he had his coins struck with him facing the left, as if Edward VIII's coins had faced right (as they should have done according to tradition). Thus, in a timeline of circulating British coins, George V and VI's coins both feature left-facing portraits, although they follow directly chronologically.

Regal titles

From a very early date, British coins have been inscribed with the name of the ruler of the kingdom in which they were produced, and a longer or shorter title, always in Latin; among the earliest distinctive English coins are the silver pennies of Offa of Mercia, which were inscribed with the legend "King Offa". As the legends became longer, words in the inscriptions were often abbreviated so that they could fit on the coin; identical legends have often been abbreviated in different ways depending upon the size and decoration of the coin. Inscriptions which go around the edge of the coin generally have started at the center of the top edge and proceeded in a clockwise direction. A very lengthy legend would be continued on the reverse side of the coin. All monarchs used Latinised names, save Edward III and Edward VI, both Elizabeths, and Charles III (which would have been EDWARDUS, ELIZABETHA, and CAROLUS respectively).

Coins in the colonies
Some coins made for circulation in the British colonies are considered part of British coinage because they have no indication of what country it was minted for and they were made in the same style as contemporary coins circulating in the United Kingdom.

A three halfpence ($1/undefined$ pence, $2 1/2$ of a pound) coin was circulated mainly in the West Indies and Ceylon in the starting in 1834. Jamaicans referred to the coin as a "quatty".

The half farthing ($2 1/2$ of a penny, $2/5$ of a pound) coin was initially minted in 1828 for use in Ceylon, but was declared legal tender in the United Kingdom in 1842.

The third farthing ($1/undefined$ of a penny, $1/undefined$ of a pound) coin was minted for use in Malta, starting in 1827.

The quarter farthing ($1/undefined$ of a penny, $1/undefined$ of a pound) coin was minted for use in Ceylon starting in 1839.

Mottos
In addition to the title, a Latin or French motto might be included, generally on the reverse side of the coin. These varied between denominations and issues; some were personal to the monarch, others were more general. Some of the mottos were:

 * "I have made God my helper". Coins of Henry VII, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I. Possibly refers to Psalm 52:7, Ecce homo qui non-posuit Deum adjutorem suum "Behold the man who did not make God his helper".
 * "A dazzling rose without a thorn". Coins of Henry VIII and Edward VI. Initially on the unsuccessful and very rare Crown of the Rose of Henry VIII and continued on subsequent small gold coinage into the reign of Edward VI.
 * "We have made God our helper". Coins of Philip and Mary. The same as above, but with a plural subject.
 * "I shall make them into one nation". Coins of James I, signifying his desire to unite the English and Scottish nations. Refers to Ezekiel 37:22 in the Vulgate Bible.
 * "I reign with Christ as my protector". Coins of Charles I.
 * "May God rise up, may [his] enemies be scattered". Coins of Charles I, during the Civil War. Refers to Psalm 67:1 in the Vulgate Bible (Psalm 68 in English Bible numbering).
 * "Peace is sought by war". Coins of the Protectorate; personal motto of Oliver Cromwell.
 * "Britain". Reign of Charles II to George III. Found on pennies and smaller denominations.
 * . "Shamed be he who thinks ill of it." Sovereigns of George III. Motto of the Order of the Garter.
 * . "An ornament and a safeguard." Some pound coins of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and some crown coins including some of Victoria and George V. Refers to the inscribed edge as a protection against the clipping of precious metal, as well as being a complimentary reference to the monarch and the monarchy.

Minting errors reaching circulation
Coins with errors in the minting process that reach circulation are often seen as valuable items by coin collectors.

In 1983, the Royal Mint mistakenly produced some two pence pieces with the old wording "New Pence" on the reverse (tails) side, when the design had been changed from 1982 to "Two Pence".

In 2016, a batch of double-dated £1 coins was released into circulation. These coins had the main date on the obverse as '2016', but micro-engraving on the reverse dated as '2017'. It is not known how many exist and are in circulation, but the amount is fewer than half a million.

In June 2009, the Royal Mint estimated that between 50,000 and 200,000 dateless 20 pence coins had entered circulation, the first undated British coin to enter circulation in more than 300 years. It resulted from the accidental combination of old and new face tooling in a production batch, creating what is known as a mule, following the 2008 redesign which moved the date from the reverse (tails) to the obverse (heads) side.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Coins of the pound sterling


text:
Talk:Gustavus Adolphus

"Gustavus" alone, without "Adolphus"
His given name was Gustavus Adolphus or Gustav Adolf or Gustav Adolph, not just Gustavus or Gustav. I have tried to find all the incorrect name form errors today. Also, please note that "Adolphus" is not a surname. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I don't want to make a new thread for this, but there is a similar problem of style as in the Charles XII talk page. The name for the monarch should be the anglicized one for the english language page, and not the latin or swedish one. I don't know if wikipedia has a policy regarding this yet though... Skerbs (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you mean, not how your idea might be relevant here. Feel free to explain more clearly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

GAW
In regard to the formation of the Gustav Adolf-werk, while I understand the need for circumspection when dealing with controversial topics, what does this refer to: " The lack of political correctness received some criticism;"? Based on the main article for GAW, this was back in the 1840s, so "political incorrectness" wasn't a thing, yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3020:EB:0:540D:BCCD:7AD3:2154 (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Tsar of Russia
It is sufficient to mention in the article's text that he briefly considered himself tsar of Russia, but that should not be given in the info box as his actual title. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Aren't his titles meant to be shown in that section even if he wasn't *literally* the Tsar? Gvssy (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, not there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not? I've seen it in other articles, and the section where you add them is called "titles", so I still don't see the issue with adding a title he had Gvssy (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

 * He held a lot of titles during his lifetime. The tag in the code might be "title", but that is not displayed in the infobox, and there is no qualifying remark like in the text, so the reader will see "Gustavus Adolphus - Tsar of Russia", giving a very misleading impression. The title is not even given for actual Tsars, and not for Władysław IV Vasa who were in a similar position as Gustavus. I see no reason for why it should be displayed in such a prominent fashion.
 * Andejons (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then we can do it like with Wladyslaw, adding "de-jure" or "claimed" next to the title, I will remain in saying that the infobox section quite obviously says "titles" and that is usually where they're supposed to go. If not. what is its purpose? Gvssy (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The page for the template has a useage guide: it says it's for "Principal substantive title(s) in use (omit this field if any one "succession(X)" field would be identical to it)". "Tsar of Russia" is hardly a principal title. A possible useage would be for Magnus Eriksson's: "King of Sweden, Norway and Scania"
 * Andejons (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you answer my other suggestion? Gvssy (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can. It's not acceptable. The text mention I added is quite sufficient. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why, English is not my first language and I have no idea of what a "principal substantive title" is, couldn't find much on Google either. It was one of the titles he had and I don't know why it shouldn't be included. Gvssy (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A substantive title is essentially one that is not given simply as a courtesy. It's not an issue here. The issue is "principal", meaning most important. Gustavus Adolphus seems to have used "Tsar of Russia" only for a brief period, and it's thus not as important as "King of Sweden", or the adjoining titles of "Duke of Estonia" or "Lord of Ingria". The text Serge Woodzing wrote is fine as it makes clear that he styled himself "Tsar of Russia" only for a brief time and does not imply that this is something he is widely recognized as.
 * Andejons (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh alright, well, I don't think i'm in a position to argue. Thanks for the explanation. Gvssy (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gustavus Adolphus


text:
Melvin Kranzberg

Melvin Kranzberg (November 22, 1917 – December 6, 1995) was an American historian, and professor of history at Case Western Reserve University from 1952 until 1971. He was a Callaway professor of the history of technology at Georgia Tech from 1972 to 1988.

Born in St. Louis, Missouri, Kranzberg graduated from Amherst College, received a master's and a Ph.D. from Harvard University and served in the U.S. Army in Europe during World War II. He received a Bronze Star for interrogating captured German prisoners and learning the location of Nazi gun emplacements. He was one of two interrogators out of nine in Patton's army who were not killed during the conflict. He received his interrogation training at Camp Ritchie in Maryland, making him one of the Ritchie Boys.

Kranzberg is known for his laws of technology, the first of which states "Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral."

He was one of the founders of the Society for the History of Technology in the United States and long-time editor of its journal Technology and Culture. Kranzberg served as president of the society from 1983 to 1984, and edited the society's journal from 1959 to 1981, when he turned it over to Robert C. Post of the Smithsonian Institution. The society awards a yearly $4000 fellowship named after Kranzberg to doctoral students engaged in the preparation of dissertations on the history of technology. The award is available to students all over the world. In 1967 Kranzberg was awarded the Leonardo da Vinci Medal by the Society for the History of Technology.

Howard P. Segal wrote an informative semi-biographical tribute to Kranzberg in the Virginia Quarterly Review.

There are two biographical articles by Robert C. Post in Technology and Culture:
 * "Back at the Start: History and Technology and Culture," T&C 51 (2010): 961–94
 * "Chance and Contingency: Putting Mel Kranzberg in Context," T&C 50 (2009): 839–72.

Kranzberg helped found the International Committee for the History of Technology.

Kranzberg's laws of technology
Melvin Kranzberg's six laws of technology state:

 * 1) Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.
 * 2) Invention is the mother of necessity.
 * 3) Technology comes in packages, big and small.
 * 4) Although technology might be a prime element in many public issues, nontechnical factors take precedence in technology-policy decisions.
 * 5) All history is relevant, but the history of technology is the most relevant.
 * 6) Technology is a very human activity – and so is the history of technology.

title: Melvin Kranzberg