Template talk:Inflation/Archive 2
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Nominal vs. real GDP
Recommending a "nominal GDP per capita" to be used in adjusting large capital expenditures (incl. government) seems like a folly to me: wouldn't a "real GDP per capita" be a much more relevant measure to adjust for inflation? "Per capita" portion of the measure is a useful adjustment when using GDP to compare large-scale expenditures, as it normalizes for the size of the economy in question. But using
In fact, I would argue that using the GDP deflator by itself in order to adjust the value of money would achieve the right effect in this case – as it is a direct adjustment for the value of money that uses GDP-based calculations instead of CPI-based ones. (It also implicitly takes care of the "per capita" part, as it compares prices rather than volume of expenditures comprising GDP – hence no need for an extra adjustment.)
So my proposal is: whenever the distinction between consumer-relevant prices and large-scale capital expenditures is warranted, we should use CPI adjustment in the former case, and the GDP deflator adjustment in the latter.
(Pinging Fifelfoo, Father Goose, JeopardyTempest, Imzadi1979, Betty Logan, hchc2009, Gah4, SilverbackNet who, as I can see from the discussions on this page, have either introduced this measure to the template, added recommendations to the template on which measure to use and when, or participated in discussions on related topics.) cherkash (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- In returning to the issue and researching it in greater depth, I'm fully in agreement with you. In fact, I think we screwed up badly here, and I'm sorry for having played a role in the screw-up. CPI (or RPI in the UK) and the GDP deflator are the only two standard measures for measuring what is known as "inflation". I think we should remove the GDPPC datasets from this template, as they are not suitable for measuring infation.
- We will need to add datasets for GDP deflators. It looks like they can be derived from tables output by https://www.measuringworth.com/usgdp/ and https://www.measuringworth.com/ukgdp/ . Any volunteers?--Father Goose (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- To be fair I am not an economist so I don't have an instant response to this thread. My understanding is that they are useful more measuring different things but I need to read up on what the distinction is. Do we have any economists on here who are able to put it into layman's terms for us with a soild example? It may well be the case that the index is being used both correctly and incorrectly in our articles, so we probably can't just delete one series and replace it with another. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am not an economist, so I might not completely understand it. Seems to me that some things don't scale the same way. Building interstate freeways doesn't scale the same as population, for example. But also government spending scales in ways that don't directly follow personal cost of living. But also, it isn't obvious that all capital (and government) expenses should scale the same way, so there might need to be more indices. But two is probably as much as we can keep track of. Gah4 (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- As ever, it comes back to what you are trying to communicate or analyse (see http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/CHA0577-5132490407 for an economics article on the problem, elements of which are reproduced here). To take an example like the Empire State Building (built at a cost of $40,948,900 in 1931), when you compare that figure to 2016, what do you most want to know? You could compare it using a CPI measure (essentially converting $40m into the cost of 1931 household goods like beer and bread, then reconverting out into the cost of household goods like TVs and cars in 2016 - $645 million); you could compare it using a GDP measure (asking what % of the US economy $40m represented in 1931, and then asking what the same % of the US economy would be in 2016 if you spent it on a new project - $9,850 million); you could compare it with a GDP per capita measure (asking what % of the US economy $40m represented in 1931, allowing for the rather larger US population in 2016 than in 1931, and then doing the same calculation - $3,790 million); you could do it by comparing wages ($1,920 million or so, depending on whose wages you are interested in); etc. etc.
- I agree with Father Goose that when measuring inflation, particularly in government, a GDP deflator (i.e. real rather than nominal) would often be used - it's very often the right tool for that problem, particularly if you're trying to calculate a rate of inflation, or trying to predict future costs. But there are plenty of exceptions in research terms - there's an interesting US government article on the problem from a medical perspective here with a summary on p.15. It lays out some of the questions you might be asking as a researcher and how you might answer them: Calculating the share of economy-wide expenditures devoted to health care over time? Use nominal costs and don't deflate. Comparing the social value of interventions across health and non-health sectors? Use a general price index. Comparing the amount of societal resources expended in different periods? Use a GDP price deflator, etc. The writers (unhelpfully for our perspective) conclude that "there is no single gold standard for adjusting health expenditures for inflation".
- In short, there are a range of choices available to academics and writers depending on what they're trying to analyse... I think it gets really difficult on the Wiki, as it is a complex subject, and many editors don't even read the guidance on the front of this template, let alone delve into further details. And don't get me started on the medieval and early modern comparison problems... :) I'd support trying to provide several options for editors, fleshing out the guidance a bit more, including where to look for reliable source off-wiki, including on particular topics. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- My main point (and the one fully understood it seems and shared by Father Goose) is the difference between nominal and real. Of course the nominals are important for certain research – in particular, when you want to derive the relevant deflators and price-index series. But when we need to calculate money-equivalence across time (which in effect, what "reals" do for us), we are not facing the choice of "real vs. nominal": the answer is clear here, we have use the reals; but rather we are facing the choice of which one of the "reals" we need to use (i.e. which of the adjustment methods is most relevant to the case in question). So nothing you wrote above, hchc2009, contradicts this, but it seems you may have been addressing a different question when talking about a sometimes-importance of nominals. cherkash (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I defer to the expertise you guys are showing in here, that's way outside my wheelhouse. Mostly I just correct or add to articles about big construction projects, since bricks and steel and heavy machinery follow such different trajectories than bread and clothing and medicine. I assume NGDPPC is meaningful for something, or it wouldn't exist, but if the "US-CAP" and "UK-CAP" aliases I wanted were switched to a more useful measure, it wouldn't affect me at all. The various specific measures can be left in a separate table at the bottom, to people who **really** want to get into the weeds, like the medical issues Hchc2009 poses. SilverbackNet talk 21:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- NGDPPC is meaningful, but as one way of measuring growth, not of inflation. As such, it does not belong in a conversion template named "inflation". The addition of it to this template was outright erroneous. The GDP deflator was what what should have been added, and used, as our means of adjusting large-scale expenditures. As to Hchc2009's comments on what adjustment to use for health care costs, the paper he cites discusses the shortcomings of using PCE, CPI, or the GDP deflator for various scenarios – but they are all superior to using NGDPPC, which is not a measure of inflation at all, and is not mentioned in the paper he cites.
- I've added a UK GDP deflator index to the template. I'll add the US one later. I'll wait for a few more days of comments before changing the documentation to advise using the GDP deflator for non-consumer expenditures and deprecate the use of NGDPPC.--Father Goose (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- US GDP deflator added.--Father Goose (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the GDP deflators, Father Goose – indeed an original mistake that is duly fixed now. cherkash (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Remove the NGDPPC indexes
So now for the real work. Can anyone cite a source suggesting that any form of GDP per capita measure is appropriate to use for inflation adjustments? I'm not talking about "measuring wealth", a concept without a fixed definition. I'm talking about just inflation, a concept generally understood to mean changes in prices in a national economy.
There are a few different standard ways to measure inflation (i.e., price indexes):
- The Consumer Price Index in the US
- The Retail Price Index in the UK
- The GDP deflator (which we now have in the template for the US and UK)
- The producer price index
- The personal consumption expenditures price index
- Chained CPI
- The Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices
Of these, only the first three are typically used to "adjust for inflation" in generic contexts. The other indexes are used by economists to perform analyses, to measure subsectors of the economy, or by central banks to perform specialized adjustments. Nowhere in my research have I come across using any form of GDP per capita measure as an adjustment for inflation. (Investopedia suggests it's useful for measuring changing standards of living, which is not the same concept as inflation.)
Given that, I think it's time to say that using NGDPPC in our inflation-adjusting template is outright incorrect, and it should be removed. The GDP deflator should be emphasized as the index to use for non-consumer expenditures. To minimize disruption, the NGDPPC option can be marked as deprecated until such time as all in-article uses of it have been removed; then the index itself should be removed from our template.--Father Goose (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, "per capita" GDP is meaningless in the context we discuss here – i.e. measuring inflation. I think instead of presuming that editors actually wanted to use NGDPPC when adding the relevant snippets of template invocation to the Wiki pages, we should just assume that what was meant is a capital-expenditure inflation measure (as NGDPPC was indeed erroneously documented as a way to do this in the template doc). So we can safely replace NGDPPC with the new GDP deflator measure. cherkash (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've made edits to all the relevant templates I could think of (Template:Inflation-year).
- I've made edits to all the relevant templates I could think of (
- In addition, ) 04:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- I thought that NGDPPC was intended to be for large government projects. I suppose it makes some sense to me. But I don't think I ever understood it in terms of wealthy people for non-government spending. So, what did all the previous NGDPPC uses get converted into? Gah4 (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Gah4, see the section above: it was a mistake that has been fixed now. In brief: the NGDPPC series are not useful for anything in the context of inflation, and they will eventually be removed from inflation templates. cherkash (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, GDP deflators should be used for large projects. GDP per capita is not a measure of "inflation" as such and should never have been added to this template.--Father Goose (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think I used to believe that the per capita GDP made sense for something that a country only needed one of. When I see a large cost, I can consider my fraction of the cost. Say a national capitol building, which a country only needs one of. Since the US population is about 1/3 of a billion, it isn't so hard to convert a price to price per capita in my head. That might also work for state capitol buildings, as the number of states is growing slowly. For rent or housing costs, where it is normally one per person, there is no reason to scale with population. For railway stations and shopping malls, the number needed should scale a little less than linear with population. I suspect that one could, other than ) 02:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't scale with population, though. It scales with economic growth (GDP). It scales inversely with population, as "per capita" is the divisor. Even if a nation is richer over time, that doesn't necessarily mean that a capitol building will be (or should be) more lavish, or even larger. Or even that something like military expenses should be presumed to grow with GDP, per capita or not. That's dependent on government revenues (taxes) but also on spending priorities (peace dividend, etc.).
- It's a bit unfortunate that the Measuring Worth website is our most convenient source for inflation datasets. I trust the data they provide, but the site itself has as its focus a set of thought experiments that are readily misunderstood about how exactly growth, and in particular inflation, should be calculated. The "different ways of measuring worth" are not wrong, but are best left as an academic exercise. Anything we refer to as "inflation" on Wikipedia should be based on a standard price index only.--Father Goose (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed the references to the US-/UK-NGDPPC templates from every mainspace article the were used in. Time to remove these series from the "inflation" templates altogether now: as already discussed, they are not relevant in the context of inflation. cherkash (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- The templates are now officially nominated for deletion here. Please leave your message in support on that page. cherkash (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Replying to the first comment by Cherkash (talk · contribs · email), suggesting a replacement of "nominal GDP per capita" for "real GDP per capita":
Actually an adjustment by "real GDP per capita" would only take into account the economic growth while ignoring any price change (inflation) during the given period of time, which would be futile and useless for any comparison. The so-called NGDPPC indexes using "nominal GDP per capita" are intended to demostrate the impact of both inflation and the enrichment of a society when comparing prices, that is, that an ammount of money that would appear as a fortune in 1900, like $5 dollars, by today's prices it will only be $123-147 dollars (whether using GDP deflator or the Consumer Price Index, respectively), which is not a lot of money, but if we use the 'nominal GDP per capita' it would be equivalent to $1,060 dollars nowadays, so this index was conceptualized to see how affordable was certain good in the past (people are typically much poorer in the past than in the present), making it not a good tool for prices comparison, but rather an expensiveness index.179.53.111.218 (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your input 179.53.111.218. This goes some way to answering my question at the top. Let me just recap (for my own benefit mainly), and you can correct me if I am wrong: CPI is as we all know the price index of a "basket of goods" while the GDP deflator is a "price index for the entire economy". Both are designed to track inflation. Nominal GDP is an index for the total value of the economy, while Real GDP is an index of economic growth (essentially the nominal GDP minus the inflation). Nominal GPD per capita is basically an index of average "wealth", whereas Real GDP per capita is basically a measure of "productivity". Would these be accurate descriptions in layman terms? I am still trying to get my head around the different distinctions. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- You may be confusing "wealth" and "income", Betty Logan (e.g. when saying "Nominal GPD per capita is basically an index of average "wealth"": wealth is the sum total of accumulated resources, whereas GDP, or rather some portion of it which is not consumed and is saved/transformed instead, is more closely related to the change in wealth).
- Same objection, to a degree, applies to you, 179.53.111.218: you somehow assume that GDP per capita translates into wealth (either directly, or by being its rate of growth). Whereas in reality, the personal income as a percentage of GDP – and taking it even further, the percentage of that income that is a disposable income (in one sense or another) – may vary drastically across time. So such comparisons using GDP itself, without taking care to derive equivalences that are more relevant to the subject of "feeling rich/poor" are ill-advised. cherkash (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah. I have yet to see anyone who defends the use of NGDPPC indexes actually provide a rationale for using them rooted in any kind of established economic practice. Mostly it seems to boil down to defending their use because they produce numbers in line with expectations, but never actually explaining what the meaning is, numerically, of adjustments using NGDPPC. Calling it "wealth" (or "worth") is no explanation at all. It is a reasonable-sounding but ultimately arbitrary claim.
- Worse still, making adjustments like this to match expectations hides the actual economic changes that have occurred across different eras. A person getting $5 in 1900 could buy approximately the same amount of goods for $123 now. They could not buy $1,060 worth of goods. Meanwhile, a modern person receiving $1,060 could buy $43 worth of 1900-era goods, not $5. What this means is that the modern man is indeed 8 times richer (on average) than his great-great-grandfather. (The underlying cause of this is because productivity has outstripped inflation.) But this does not mean my great-great-grandfather received $1,060 worth of wealth. I am wealthier than he was. He really did receive a mere 123 bucks. We cannot magically say he got $1,060 simply because that's about the amount I would get today for the same amount of work. And it would be even less meaningful to say that if he sold something for $5, it would be worth $1,060 today.
- NGDPPC reflects that wealth has grown over time, which is exactly why you cannot use it to map wealth from an earlier era onto the wealth of the modern era: doing so obscures the fact that wealth has grown over time, and it obscures the fact that people are richer in the modern era, in terms of the goods they can afford, than they were in past eras.--Father Goose (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- The definition at Measuring Worth states: "The GDP per capita is an index of the economy's average output per person and is closely correlated with the average income. It can be useful in comparing different incomes over time." The source is Samuel H. Williamson, a professor of economics. Again, this is not my background so I don't dispute that GDP per capita is not useful for not inflating the "cost" of something, but it seems to have some valid applications in comparing value over time. You are most likely correct that the series does not belong under an inflation template, but I am not sure it should be just deleted. For instance, if I want to know who was "richer", John D. Rockefeller or Bill Gates, there are two ways to consider that question: i) what would their respective fortunes be worth today (which would use a GDF deflator); and ii) what is their comparative "richness" by the standards of their own eras? In this case GDP per capita seems like a useful metric because wealth has outstripped inflation so you need more than just a price index to draw a comparison. Betty Logan (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- NGDPPC reflects that wealth has grown over time, which is exactly why you cannot use it to map wealth from an earlier era onto the wealth of the modern era: doing so obscures the fact that wealth has grown over time, and it obscures the fact that people are richer in the modern era, in terms of the goods they can afford, than they were in past eras.--Father Goose (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- You can use NGDPPC to compare average incomes across different eras, but as I argued earlier, not to meaningfully adjust them. So... maybe you could use the NGDPPC dataset within a template to note that what someone made in 1900 is about an eighth what a modern person might make. But using straight NGDPPC assumes income distribution is equal and also doesn't take into account cost of living changes. So using it in pretty much any kind of numeric manner (or template) is iffy. I think we're better off just sticking to inflation adjustments and letting people be occasionally surprised when historical figures don't seem all that big, because they weren't.
- As for Gates vs. Rockefeller, we already do compare them on Wikipedia using the GDP deflator: see List of wealthiest historical figures and List of richest Americans in history. If one wanted to compare their fortunes relative to their eras, you could express them as a percentage of GDP, and we do that in John D. Rockefeller: "a fortune worth nearly 2% of the national economy". (I have a problem with this approach, as it compares assets to production, two very different values, but it is a common approach nonetheless.) None of this involves NGDPPC either way.
- Let's retire this damned dataset already. A long-standing error is still an error.--Father Goose (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts on the appropriate use of this template
There is an RfC at Talk:Manchester Martyrs regarding the use of this template in a case where there is a very wide range of possible current values of a sum of money. Any input would be appreciated. Scolaire (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Now resolved. The gist of the discussion was that, for a reward of £300 offered in 1867, the
Edit request: Category:Inflation calculation templates
Please add the following to this template to add Category:Inflation calculation templates to all transclusions in Template namespace:
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Template|[[Category:Inflation calculation templates]]}}
.
Thank you. Daask (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Australian CPI
In an attempt to update Australia's CPI, I spent a half-hour going through the Australian Bureau of Statistics however I could only find the quarterly rate. I then went to this page from the web site Measuring Worth [[1]], which gave me this; 2009 92.90 2010 95.80 2011 99.20 2012 100.40 2013 102.80 2014 105.90 2015 107.50 2016 108.60 2017 110.70 If there are no objections, I will use these figures to update Australia's inflation rate into this decade. I will, of course include M.W.s source for my refs. Keith 07:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith o (talk • contribs)
Equivalent
I think that use of the "equivalent" word is misleading, it should be something more approximate (about/around or similar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.25.210.104 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Feature request: range conversion
I encountered this sentence on
Request: Have current year automatically specified
I'd like to have a flag so that the "current" year of the worth of the money is displayed. For example: "$100 ($160 adjusted for inflation as of 2017)" with 2017 being the year the template for USD was last updated WhisperToMe (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Did you read second message box "Do not assume ..."? It's automatic by
|fmt=eq
or manually by{{Inflation/year}}
. --89.25.210.104 (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Euro
What about Euro version using Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices? Several datasets are available, Eurostat (Euro area, annual data, 2015=100, 1996-) or ECB (Euro area, annual frequency, 1997-) make the most sense for me.--Jklamo (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
US 2018 figure (provisional) available
I have updated the 2017 figure, but not added the new 2018 figure. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC).
update req'd
@
UK - CPI / CPIH
Some discussion on Twitter about this template's use of RPI. Per the Office for National Statistics: "The course on which ONS has embarked has therefore been ... discouraging the use of RPI, while recognising the legacy needs ... RPI does not have the potential to become a good measure of inflation."[2]
Has anyone been working towards making UK CPI or CPIH available with this template? TSP (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
"start_year" Errors
When parameter start_year > 2017 is passed to "Inflation", an error is returned:
"formatnum:{{Inflation|US|700059566|2018}}: yields: "$Error when using {{Inflation}}: |start_year=2,018 (parameter 3) is greater than the latest available year (2,017) in index "US". "
Wapiti (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Right. That's what the documentation says. Look at the table that includes a column called "end_year maximum". – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I believe the editor is referring to unholy messes like the one that can be seen at List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_States_and_Canada#Not_adjusted_for_inflation. This has happened across dozens of articles, simply because we have entered 2019. The exact same thing happened last year. Two things need to be done to fix the errors. First of all Template:Inflation/US/dataset needs to be updated with the 2018 index (found using the link given in the template documentation); I fixed this myself last year but the template has now been protected meaning I cannot do this. After this is done the year at Template:Inflation/year needs to be updated to 2018. It's about five minutes work and it would be much appreciated if somebody with the appropriate permissions could take of this. Betty Logan (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's a bit messy; it looks like the template does not check well enough for invalid year inputs, which leads to messes like this. Somehow, the 2018 values appear to have been working until we got to 2019. I have done the updates to the templates in question, I believe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, everything appears to be working now. The root of the problem is that there is a lag in the index being updated. The 2018 index probably won't be finalised until the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2019, but editors will keep adding data during that period. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry if I was unclear. What I meant was that this works, even though the year is set to 2019: $1,116,240,965. According to the documentation, I shouldn't be able to put 2019 in the template, right? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- From doc (start_year):
Must be a year available in the chosen inflation index. As an exception to this, if the current year is specified and no end_year is specified, the template will output value unchanged, as it can be assumed an inflation of zero.
. MarMi wiki (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)- Thank you for that explanation. That makes sense, except for the part where big red error messages appear in articles every time January 1 comes around. I wonder if it would make more sense to insert a gentle hover-over note of some sort explaining that the figure may be out of date, along with a tracking category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- From doc (start_year):
- Sorry if I was unclear. What I meant was that this works, even though the year is set to 2019: $1,116,240,965. According to the documentation, I shouldn't be able to put 2019 in the template, right? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, everything appears to be working now. The root of the problem is that there is a lag in the index being updated. The 2018 index probably won't be finalised until the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2019, but editors will keep adding data during that period. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's a bit messy; it looks like the template does not check well enough for invalid year inputs, which leads to messes like this. Somehow, the 2018 values appear to have been working until we got to 2019. I have done the updates to the templates in question, I believe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I believe the editor is referring to unholy messes like the one that can be seen at List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_States_and_Canada#Not_adjusted_for_inflation. This has happened across dozens of articles, simply because we have entered 2019. The exact same thing happened last year. Two things need to be done to fix the errors. First of all Template:Inflation/US/dataset needs to be updated with the 2018 index (found using the link given in the template documentation); I fixed this myself last year but the template has now been protected meaning I cannot do this. After this is done the year at Template:Inflation/year needs to be updated to 2018. It's about five minutes work and it would be much appreciated if somebody with the appropriate permissions could take of this. Betty Logan (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
NaN error in "Format price" example
The first example in the "Format price" section is marked as good but produces a NaN result. I was unable to determine the cause. Once that's fixed, usage on this article is producing a NaN result and also appears to be violating your guidelines. DBN (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know about the first one, but the TMI one looks like: $2.47 billion Gah4 (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- However:
{{) 08:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can
{{
Formatprice}} handle scientific notation in the form 2.032×109, though? I thought it had to look like: 2.032E9. Anyway, I don't see any recent changes in the histories of either template. Was there a MediaWiki upgrade or something? (Btw, it seems like quite a few articles are probably broken; Macy's, Inc. has quite a few NaNs, which is what brought me here.) —BorgHunter (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC) - Looks like a friendly editor at the Village Pump Rnd}} to undo that until a solution can be found for this use case. —BorgHunter (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can
Template-protected edit request on 26 January 2019
This edit request to Template:Inflation/UK/dataset has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone add the data for 2017 and 2018? I'm getting 121.869 and 125.939, respectively, from the source in the template documentation. Also, according to the comment at the bottom of this template,
23:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Category
This edit request to Template:Inflation/UK/dataset has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace
[[Category:Data templates|United Kingdom inflation]]
with the more specific
[[Category:United Kingdom data templates]]
TerraCyprus (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Done * Pppery * it has begun... 18:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
JP Inflation
I was adding some Japanese prices in an article and noticed the end year maximum is 2013. I checked the reference and it has current data. Template:Inflation/JP/dataset also has data up to the current date too but I'm not 100% sure if all that's needed is an update to the max end year or if there's some more complicated workings I'm unaware of but I thought I'd mention it. CrimsonFox talk 08:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- After reading a bit more I think an update to Template talk:Inflation/year CrimsonFox talk08:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Edit protected - Template:Inflation/US/dataset - Category
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to move {{Inflation/US/dataset}} from Category:Data templates to more specific Category:United States data templates. TerraCyprus (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Capital E on equivalent?
Sometimes I want to use it at the beginning of a sentence. deisenbe (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
No trailing zeros when r=1?
{{Inflation|US|1|2017|2018|r=1}}
expected result 1.0, actual result 1. When r=2, the result is 1.02 as expected. --Traal (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I posted a question at Module talk:Math. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like a bug in Module:Math. I have replaced "round" with "precision_format", which appears to pad properly. Please ping me here if there are unexpected negative side effects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Self-reverted due to error in Template:Format price when it is used to wrap {{Inflation}}, possibly because
precision_format
outputs a string. See Template talk:Format price. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Self-reverted due to error in Template:Format price when it is used to wrap {{Inflation}}, possibly because
- Looks like a bug in Module:Math. I have replaced "round" with "precision_format", which appears to pad properly. Please ping me here if there are unexpected negative side effects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
France
I just imported
Update to inflation dataset
This edit request to Template:Inflation/US/dataset, Template:Inflation/fn and Template:Inflation/year has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Step 1
At {{Inflation/US/dataset}} please replace this:
| 2018 |#default = 752.9
With this:
| 2018 = 754.6
| 2019 |#default = 768.3
This is just the annual update for the template. The new information comes from https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator/consumer-price-index-1800-
Step 2
Once the dataset has been updated the source also need to be updated. At {{Inflation/fn}}, in the | US =
line please update the date to January 1, 2020. There are two instances of the date that need to be updated, representing the two date formats.
Step 3
The final step updates the most recent year. At {{Inflation/year}} you need to replace this line:
| US|USD = 2018
with this:
| US|USD = 2019
If you complete the updates successfully then the errors that can be found at aticles such as List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada should disappear. Best wishes. Betty Logan (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Inflation/UK/dataset has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Similarly UK data for 2019 available from the URL given.
Step 1
At {{Inflation/UK/dataset}} please replace this:
| 2018|#default = 125.939
needs changing to
| 2018 = 125.939
| 2019|#default = 129.159
Step 2
Once the dataset has been updated the source also need to be updated. At {{Inflation/fn}}, in the | UK =
line please update the date to February 2, 2020. There are two instances of the date that need to be updated, representing the two date formats.
Step 3
The final step updates the most recent year. At {{Inflation/year}} you need to replace this line:
| UK|GBP = 2018
with this:
| UK|GBP = 2019
--David Biddulph (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
This should be a module to reduce expansion depth
See also: Template talk:US$#This needs a rewrite to reduce template expansion depth.
This template uses over 20 of the 40 levels of "expansion depth" allowed by MediaWiki software described at meta:Help:Expansion depth. Pages that go over the limit wind up in Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded.
At least one template, {{US$}}, uses 33 of the 40 levels when it is used with the |year=
parameter to calculate inflation, which doesn't leave much headroom for templates that call US$.
One good solution would be to turn this template into a module. Anyone up for the task? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2019 data
There appears to be GDP deflator statistics for 2019 (used in US-GDP). Can someone more familiar with the template give an update? Thanks-- Therapyisgood (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Sources
Hello
I found this template by accident while trying to fix a sourced current value for a 19th century cash amount. It is certainly a useful template; can I suggest you add a link to it, so that readers might know where the estimate comes from, and that editors won't otherwise spend time tracking the information down/trying to fix it per RS/VERIFY? In the meantime I’ve done this to provide some verification. Swanny18 (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- @inflation-fn}} to create a footnote for the appropriate inflation index being used. Imzadi 1979 →03:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979:: Thanks for that (and for fixing the Six Napoleon’s article)
- It would seem to be best practice to use all three templates, but I notice that while the inflation template is used on about 12,000 articles, the count for the footnote one is only 4,700-ish (and for the year template the it’s 16,000-odd; I’ve no idea why that should be). Is there any way of prompting the use of all three templates? Maybe a bot message when the inflation one is used, like the prompt for links to a disambiguation page, or something) Or am I reading too much into this? Swanny18 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Bug report. Template math is off by $100
Using this template for $25 and $50 respectively (and all other values being the same) yields:
$25 equivalent to $900 in 2023
$50 equivalent to $1,800 in 2023
Since 2 x $25 = $50, one would naturally assume that doubling the amount in the $25 template to $50 would produce a template output of $1,600 yet what we are seeing is instead $1,500, off by $100 or approximately 7%. --That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- @That man from Nantucket: You have used the parameter
|r=-2
asking it to round to the nearest $100. If you change the rounding parameter you will see a different precision, such as: - $25 equivalent to $916 in 2023
- $50 equivalent to $1,831 in 2023
- --David Biddulph (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Can the index know the currency symbol?
I used this template for British pounds and it surprised me that I have to put the currency symbol if I'm not using US dollars. Doesn't the GBP
index know which currency (and therefore symbol) it's expecting as input, and therefore producing as output? I thought it might do automatic currency conversion so that I could specify cursign=$
and have the resulting GBP converted to USD but it's just to change what's displayed.
Anyway, it would be nice if I could just do \{\{Inflation|GBP|1.5|2000|2019|fmt=eq}}
and have it work as expected. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Default r=-3
to prevent false precision?
Too often I find {{inflation}} abused in a way that reports numbers with false precision, like here: "... signed him to a contract worth $15,000 (USD, $22,041.4 today)." Even ignoring the fact that here $15,000 is probably rounded already, the implied precision (down to cents!) of the adjusted number is clearly absurd. Since this is a frequent occurrence, I suggest we change the default precision of this template accordingly. --bender235 (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Making the default r=-3 doesn't help much, except for baseball salaries. Recent discussion in {{convert}} shows that there is a better way to do this. {{Convert}} does it based on significant digits, or relative precision. Setting r=-3 would be wrong for values of a few dollars, or a few billion dollars. In addition (since there are many r= out there), there should be a sigfig= option, default without r=, for relative digits. In the case of {{convert}}, it figures out the digits based on the input value. That might or might not be right here. Gah4 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe computing significant figures on the input value isn't so easy, but one could still specify the number of significant figures for the output, and 2 might be about right for the majority of cases. Note that r= doesn't work well, as it changes with the order of magnitude of the value. Gah4 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Add to sources discussion
Hiya to add to the sources discussion above, I have been happily using this template, it's super useful (for example at
) 11:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)- 1684 is a long time ago, and a lot has changed since then. According to the accuracy link on that page, the goods that households buy have changed over the years. OK, for one, 1,526,611.85 has way too much precision, and even 1,120,000 probably still does. The difference is a factor of about 1.4, which is probably about as good as you can get without knowing the exact set of goods. As I understand, the price of a BigMac is used by some as an index, (I suspect not for this one), but obviously that doesn't work for 1684. You just have to believe that a factor of 1.4 is close enough. Gah4 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Units addition
Would it be possible to allow units to be entered in the value, which would be copied to the output? Most of the numbers I deal with are of the form "1.2 billion", which has to be manually recreated using two templates. It would be much easier if I could |US|12. billion|1978, and I think that would help the readability of the source as well.. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Most of the time, you can just put the units on the outside. There are sometimes that might fail (as in look ugly), but most often it should work. Can you give more of an example of what doesn't work? Gah4 (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have the same problem. I am constantly using expressions like:
- $125 million (equivalent to ${{Format price|{{Inflation|US-GDP|125000000|1979}}}} in {{Inflation/year|US-GDP}})
- This is the wrong approach. It is cumbersome, error prone (because the valued has to be entered twice, the second time with a lot of zeroes), and clutters the article. It would be much simpler if Maury's suggestion were allowed. {{Inflation|US|125 million|1979|fmt=eq}}
- @Maury Markowitz: In the Sandbox I created a new format "eqm", to perform the task:
- {{Inflation/sandbox|US|125|1979|fmt=eqm}} => Error when using {{Inflation}}:
|index=US
(parameter 1) not a recognized index.
- {{Inflation/sandbox|US|125|1979|fmt=eqm}} => Error when using {{Inflation}}:
- See (Template:Inflation/testcases). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why not just: $125 million (equivalent to $423 million in 2023)?
- That is, $125 million (equivalent to ${{Inflation|US-GDP|125|1979|r=0}} million in {{Inflation/year|US-GDP}})
- (Note that the
{{Format price}}
confuses things by adding on cents.) Gah4 (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have the same problem. I am constantly using expressions like:
France
The inflation data for France has been already added. The other templates need to be updated. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
"Calculation error" NaN on Maung Weik
I happened to look at the error category and see the article Maung Weik.
The full message is Error when using {{Inflation}}: NaN/calculation error please notify Template talk:Inflation..
I see that the issue was introduced to that article with what is currently the most recent edit,
- I made the error go away by adding a value for
|round=
. I didn't read the documentation to find out why it worked, but it seems to have worked. The error message was not particularly helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
KRW
- I added an example in the documentation. I cannot make the error go away. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Expansion depth
This template runs too deep. I see a commented out workaround in the source code. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Is there an article in which this is happening? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Expansion depth was exceeded in a couple of articles where I was attempting to perform nested calculations. I also now managed to reduce a bit the expansion depth of one of my templates that calls this one so it does not happen there. Otherwise, someone complained about the problem in the talk page of {{INRConvert}}. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Germany
Inflation-year is wrong and German wikipedia has data to 2019. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- The data and logic were corrected in the German version. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Austria, Switzerland
German wikipedia has this. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Update?
The USD inflation year is still 2019; how do we update it? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Here's the approximation of index value for the year 2020 (source: More Formatting Options: Select view of the data - uncheck Original Data Value, check 12-Month Percent Change; Select the time frame for your data - Select one time period - Annual Data; Graphs - uncheck):
- 2020 = x / 768.3 = 1.012
- 2020 = 1.012 * 768.3 = 777.5196 = ~777.5
- Example diff (1.2% = 1.012) MarMi wiki (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- MarMi wiki, okay... I'm still not sure how to plug those numbers in to do the update. And from the table, it looks like a bunch of other currencies haven't been updated in several years. This template is used on 14,000 pages, so it seems like it ought to be more rigorously updated. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- The US data sets get updated annually in late March or early April. In past years, I've updated them on tax day (April 15). The GDP series lags behind the CPI series by a whole year typically, so 2019 makes sense yet. Imzadi 1979 → 21:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- On a side note, I found this source (MeasuringWorth), that theoretically is more precise - index has two places of precision (0.01), starts from 1774 and include 2020. MarMi wiki (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- The US data sets get updated annually in late March or early April. In past years, I've updated them on tax day (April 15). The GDP series lags behind the CPI series by a whole year typically, so 2019 makes sense yet. Imzadi 1979 → 21:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- MarMi wiki, okay... I'm still not sure how to plug those numbers in to do the update. And from the table, it looks like a bunch of other currencies haven't been updated in several years. This template is used on 14,000 pages, so it seems like it ought to be more rigorously updated. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2021
This edit request to Template:Inflation/US/dataset has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Paste above 1800 data on Template:Inflation/US/dataset, sources in invisible comment. |1634=66.5 |1636=118.75 |1637=102.25 |1638=53.75 |1639=88 |1640=76.25 |1641=76.25 |1642=77 |1643=111.25 |1644=80 |1645=70.5 |1646=43.5 |1647=33 |1648=58.25 |1649=85.5 |1650=45.25 |1651=60.5 |1652=47.75 |1653=62 |1654=62.25 |1655=5.25 |1656=58.75 |1657=48 |1658=30.75 |1659=34.5 |1660=39.75 |1661=33.5 |1662=36.25 |1663=36.25 |1664=36.25 |1665=31 |1666=31 |1667=33.5 |1668=34.5 |1669=32.25 |1670=31.5 |1671=32.25 |1672=32 |1673=30.5 |1674=32.75 |1675=30.5 |1676=30.75 |1677=30.75 |1678=30.25 |1679=30 |1680=34.5 |1681=35.25 |1682=28.75 |1683=28.75 |1684=28.75 |1685=31 |1686=29.25 |1687=28.75 |1688=26.5 |1689=27.25 |1690=27.75 |1691=28.5 |1692=27.75 |1693=25.75 |1694=27.5 |1695=25.25 |1696=30 |1697=29 |1698=27.75 |1699=30.25 |1700=43.9072 |1701=47.6225 |1702=45.9337 |1703=39.8543 |1704=36.476 |1705=35.1258 |1706=37.4900 |1707=40.1920 |1708=42.5562 |1709=39.1788 |1710=33.7748 |1711=35.4635 |1712=40.1920 |1713=43.2317 |1714=43.2317 |1715=29.7218 |1716=24.317 |1717=25.6688 |1718=29.7218 |1719=31.0728 |1720=25.6688 |1721=23.9801 |1722=25.3311 |1723=25.6688 |1724=27.0198 |1725=32.0860 |1726=31.0728 |1727=29.0463 |1728=27.3576 |1729=27.0198 |1730=27.0198 |1731=23.9801 |1732=22.6291 |1733=22.2913 |1734=22.6291 |1735=22.9668 |1736=21.953 |1737=22.2913 |1738=23.9801 |1739=21.2781 |1740=22.2913 |1741=30.7350 |1742=27.3576 |1743=23.9801 |1744=22.2913 |1745=21.6158 |1746=21.953 |1747=23.9801 |1748=27.6953 |1749=28.3708 |1750=28.3708 |1751=28.7086 |1752=29.3841 |1753=28.3708 |1754=27.3576 |1755=26.682 |1756=26.0066 |1757=27.3576 |1758=29.3841 |1759=33.4370 |1760=32.4238 |1761=30.3973 |1762=32.0860 |1763=32.0860 |1764=29.7218 |1765=30.0596 |1766=33.0993 |1767=32.0860 |1768=30.3973 |1769=31.4105 |1770=33.7748 |1771=32.4238 |1772=36.8145 |1773=34.1125 |1774=32.7615 |1775=31.0728 |1776=35.4635 |1777=43.2317 |1778=56.0662 |1779=49.6490 |1780=55.728 |1781=44.9205 |1782=49.3112 |1783=43.2317 |1784=41.5430 |1785=39.5165 |1786=38.5033 |1787=37.8278 |1788=36.1390 |1789=35.8013 |1790=37.1523 |1791=38.1655 |1792=38.841 |1793=40.1920 |1794=44.5827 |1795=51 |1796=53.7019 |1797=51.6754 |1798=49.9867 |1799=49.9867 Zoozaz1 talk 14:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Zoozaz1: I'm not seeing any invisible comment (I think they get stripped from the edit request due to a quirk in the way the system works). Could you please post the sources again? * Pppery * it has begun... 00:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pppery, That's odd. The sources are this up to 1699 and this for the rest. Zoozaz1 talk 00:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done Note that the documentation explicitly mentions the source for post-1800 data and should probably be updated to mention those two sources as well. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pppery, Yeah, I'm planning to update that for all of my work on a lot of various inflation templates in one big edit request later on. Would you mind changing the start year to 1634? Zoozaz1 talk 00:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pppery, Yeah, I'm planning to update that for all of my work on a lot of various inflation templates in one big edit request later on. Would you mind changing the start year to 1634? Zoozaz1 talk 00:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done Note that the documentation explicitly mentions the source for post-1800 data and should probably be updated to mention those two sources as well. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pppery, That's odd. The sources are this up to 1699 and this for the rest. Zoozaz1 talk 00:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Finland, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Netherlands, Romania, Poland, Croatia, Denmark
It would be important to get the data. Many ships are built there. China and Russia too, but prices are missing. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Trigenibinion, FYI, I've added data for all of those but Romania and Croatia (data during the communist period is hard to come by) and will be making it functional soon. Zoozaz1 talk 02:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request 21 May 2021 - need US update to 2020
This edit request to Template:Inflation/US/dataset has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The US Inflation template data needs to be updated to 2020. This requires editing 3 pages. The source showing the 2020 data can be found here.
1. Template:Inflation/US/dataset requires a change from
| 2019 |#default = 768.3
to
| 2019 = 768.3
| 2020 |#default = 777.7
2. Template:Inflation/year requires a change from
| US|USD = 2019
to
| US|USD = 2020
3. Template:Inflation/fn requires the current date be updated in two places on the line that starts with | US =
.
Thank you. CuriousEric 01:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Updated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Thank you. Although at Template:Inflation/fn on line
| US =
the date "May 1, 2021" should be "May 21, 2021" to match the DMY date. Thanks. CuriousEric 14:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Thank you. Although at Template:Inflation/fn on line
Documentation #Currency_conversion
Template:Inflation#Currency_conversion is wrong - right now the {{Inflation/DE}}
do converts (or redenominates) marks to euro (see year 2002 in DE template). MarMi wiki (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Documentation fmt=c
It doesn't have to be c, any value set (other than raw
of course), even empty, will add the comma(s), because of the condition at formatnum:
|{{#ifeq:{{{fmt|raw}}}|raw|R|}}
MarMi wiki (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Year 1635 is missing (or the starting year [1634] is incorrect). MarMi wiki (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's missing because the source used does not have data for that specific year. Zoozaz1 talk 15:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- So shouldn't it be set to 0, like in the Template:Inflation/UK/dataset?
- And by the way, how it was determined that the indexes for the years 1634-1699 should be divided by 4? 1700-1800 index calculations comes (probably) from dividing the indexes in year 1800 (151/51 or 51/151), but I don't know how it was done for the range of 1634-1699 (no common years). MarMi wiki (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- It should be set to 0, yes, when I was entering it I wasn't sure of the proper way to indicate that there was no data for the year. The 1634-1699 dataset includes a column that links it to the 1860 base. Zoozaz1 talk 17:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- So shouldn't, for example, the 1699 (= 121 in the source, with base 1860) be
121 / (151/51 = 2.96078431372549) = 40.86754966887417
, instead of30.25
(which is121/4
for some reason)? MarMi wiki (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)- What I probably did was
(121/100) * 25
, likely confusing 1850 for 1860, but what I would have done is(121/100) * 27 = 32.67
. I'm not sure where you got that equation. Zoozaz1 talk 21:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)- And I'm not sure why you calculate 1634-1699 in different way, instead of using the same method as for 1700-1799 - both indexes are the same indexes based on 1860. ("The annual average index numbers for 1634-1700 as reported in column 6 of Table A-2, Revised, may simply be inserted at the beginning of column 6 of the original table.", [3], p. 330 [Table A-2, Revised is 2 pages later]).
- The equation I used (I think I found it here or some other source) seems to produce nearly identical results as the one used for the 1700-1799 range (+/-1 after rounding to the same precision), so I'm assuming it's correct.
- Using the method you used above for 1700:
(130/100) * 27
(I'm assuming the 100 is from 1800 column 6 in McCusker, and 1860=27 is from minneapolisfed) equals35.1
instead of43.9072
("my" method:130/(151/51) [or 130*(51/151)] = 43.90728476821192
[1700=130 and 1800=151 from McCusker, 1800=51 from minneapolisfed]). MarMi wiki (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)- The reason for the discrepancy there is that McCusker's numbers from 1800-1860 are different than the Fed's numbers in that time period, so the relationship between 1800 and the 1860 number is different for each source and therefore calculating the 1700 number would be different based off the 1800 numbers (which you used) instead of the 1860 numbers (which I used). In McCusker the
1800 number / 1860 number = 1.51
, while for the fed it's1.89
. Therefore theFed number/McCuscker number
should be greater at the 1800 number than the 1860 number. The equation I used in a different form is130 * (27/100)
(with 27 being the fed number and 100 McCusker's number); the difference between our methods is because51/151>27/100
, 51/151 being the 1800 relationship and 27/100 being the 1860 relationship. - The question then becomes should we use the 1800 numbers or the 1860 numbers uniformly. I suppose we should use the 1800 numbers simply because that's what I used for the 1700-1799 index and because it reduces a sharp drop off of numbers, but I would think theoretically each method is equally valid.
- The reason I originally calculated it differently was because the data I used did not have data for 1700, only 1699, and it seemed simplest just to compare the 1699 number with the 1860 base. Ultimately that was an arbitrary decision which I thought wouldn't matter as theoretically the CPI from 1800-1860 should be the same using either the Fed source or McCuscker. Zoozaz1 talk 03:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- I understand now, thank you for the explanations.
- (Last paragraph) It (most likely) wouldn't mattered, if the 1699 had different base than 1700. But since both are part of the same index, it matters.
- 1700 inflation check (1700/1699):
- McCusker: 130/121 = ~1.0744 (~7.4%)
- 1634 method (1860): (130 * (27/100)) = 35.1 /32.67 = ~1.0744 (~7.4%)
- Mixed methods: 43.9072/32.67 = ~1.3444 (~34.4%)
- 1700 method (1800): 43.9072/ (121 * (51/151) = ~40.8675) = ~1.0744 (~7.4%) MarMi wiki (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- The reason for the discrepancy there is that McCusker's numbers from 1800-1860 are different than the Fed's numbers in that time period, so the relationship between 1800 and the 1860 number is different for each source and therefore calculating the 1700 number would be different based off the 1800 numbers (which you used) instead of the 1860 numbers (which I used). In McCusker the
- What I probably did was
- So shouldn't, for example, the 1699 (= 121 in the source, with base 1860) be
- It should be set to 0, yes, when I was entering it I wasn't sure of the proper way to indicate that there was no data for the year. The 1634-1699 dataset includes a column that links it to the 1860 base. Zoozaz1 talk 17:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and I found other source for the years 1634-1699, by McCusker - with small differences starting from 1659 - but at least you don't need to register to get it. MarMi wiki (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's fine; the other source is more recent and it's still free. If you want to change it to that though it's up to you considering the mistake I made means it has to be changed anyway. Zoozaz1 talk 21:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- According to reference section of Harris article, the 1996 McCusker is newer than the Harris - p. 504, the McCusker revision is "forthcoming". MarMi wiki (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's fine; the other source is more recent and it's still free. If you want to change it to that though it's up to you considering the mistake I made means it has to be changed anyway. Zoozaz1 talk 21:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 5 July 2021
This edit request to Template:Inflation/US/dataset has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace 1634 to 1699 data with:
|1634=89.84088 |1635=0 |1636=160.4301 |1637=138.1388 |1638=72.61575 |1639=118.8871 |1640=103.0130 |1641=69.23827 |1642=104.0262 |1643=150.2977 |1644=108.0792 |1645=95.24484 |1646=58.76809 |1647=44.58269 |1648=78.69521 |1649=115.5097 |1650=61.13233 |1651=81.73494 |1652=64.50980 |1653=83.76142 |1654=84.09917 |1655=81.39719 |1656=79.37070 |1657=64.84755 |1658=41.54296 |1659=46.94692 |1660=54.03963 |1661=45.25819 |1662=48.97341 |1663=48.97341 |1664=48.97341 |1665=42.21846 |1666=42.21846 |1667=45.25819 |1668=46.94692 |1669=43.56945 |1670=42.89395 |1671=43.56945 |1672=43.23170 |1673=41.20521 |1674=44.58269 |1675=41.20521 |1676=41.54296 |1677=41.54296 |1678=40.86747 |1679=40.52972 |1680=46.60918 |1681=47.62242 |1682=38.84098 |1683=38.84098 |1684=38.84098 |1685=42.21846 |1686=39.51648 |1687=39.17873 |1688=35.80125 |1689=37.15224 |1690=37.48999 |1691=38.50323 |1692=37.48999 |1693=35.12576 |1694=37.15224 |1695=34.45026 |1696=40.52972 |1697=39.17873 |1698=37.48999 |1699=40.86747
The numbers should be easier to copy and paste in source mode. Zoozaz1 talk 01:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Zoozaz1: source for your numbers? Elli (talk | contribs) 09:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda Zoozaz1 talk 15:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Done * Pppery * it has begun... 17:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda Zoozaz1 talk 15:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Related - Template:Inflation/fn|PL:
Does the OECD data (starts at ~1989 in Inflation 1800-2000) is used in the dataset? Mitchell: I may be wrong, buy most likely the only one of his sources that has data for Poland is probably Europe 1750-1993.
Ref for convenience: 1914 to 2007: Coos Santing, 2007, Inflation 1800-2000, data from OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Economic Outlook. Historical Statistics and Mitchell, B. R. International Historical Statistics, Africa, Asia and Oceania 1750-1993 London : Macmillan ; New York : Stockton, 1998, International Historical Statistics, Europe 1750-1993 London : Macmillan ; New York : Stockton, 1998, and International Historical Statistics, The Americas 1750-1993 London : Macmillan ; New York : Stockton, 1998
Template:Inflation/PL/dataset:
Missing years - 1940-1944 and 1915-1919, would be good to set them to 0.
1848/9 - it seems that from 1949 there's another index used (or some other calculation is applied), can you (Zoozaz1, or someone else) explain to me how 1949 (8139.90909090909) was calculated? (I can't see formulas in the source, only color codes [4], if it has any meaning.)
Reference:
1948=7786
1949=8139.90909090909 MarMi wiki (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've fixed the data. The index comes from the Mitchell+OECD tab of the spreadsheet. Zoozaz1 talk 19:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. MarMi wiki (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Template:Inflation/CH
Is the Inflation/CH referencing the wrong dataset? I could well be missing something but it seems to using the Inflation/IN/dataset rather than the CH one. Jc5732 (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed. Luckily according to the statistics no article seemed to be using it. Zoozaz1 talk 14:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Calculated currency figures should be shown with limited precision Suggestion
I'm writing this after noticing the following output of the Inflation template, in the article Margaret Brown:
"[Brown] also received a $700 monthly allowance (equivalent to $20,163 in 2020) to continue her travels and social work."
The problem here is that $20,163 is being reported to 5 significant digits, far beyond the precision of the calculation.
Inflation calculations are always approximate, because many very varied price histories are combined to obtain a useful average. In this case the starting figure is $700 in 1909. That probably represents only 2 significant digits. Then the amount reported should be rounded to the nearest $100, for a result in this case of $20,200 in 2020.
My point, then, is that the Inflation template should only report 2 or possibly 3 digits of precision. Dratman (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is the r= parameter to indicate rounding. The value is the number if digits after the decimal point, default of 0. The units conversion {{convert}} does, more or less, figure out the significant figures of the input and propagate it. In your case, r=-3 might be about right. Gah4 (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Gah4|Gah4! Dratman (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep in mind, that the inflation values are updated, so I wouldn't recommend rounding to less than 2 digits - especially when the number is small enough to easily loose precision after some time (ex. 10,000 can drop to 9,000).
- I think that leaving 3 digits (after rounding) is an optimal solution. MarMi wiki (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 16 April 2022
This edit request to Template:Inflation/US/dataset has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2021 data for the US is now available and the dataset and related parts of the template may now be updated. 2600:6C64:507F:E6E1:C8CE:2644:2AE1:1025 (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 18:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Trouble with the New Zealand CPI index
Hello, I seem to be having some trouble using the NZ index. @Zoozaz1 and I have updated the data on {{Inflation/NZ/dataset}}, and the {{Inflation/fn}} and {{Inflation/year}} have been updated correctly (thanks @Paine Ellsworth), but it seems to generate "NaN" errors when I try and use it. I have some tests on my sandbox page, and I started a topic on Template talk:Inflation/NZ/dataset before realising I should bring it up here. Any help greatly appreciated! Cheers — Jon (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Jonathanischoice, I fixed it. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 2 December 2021
This edit request to Template:Inflation/UK/dataset, Template:Inflation/year and Template:Inflation/fn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is a request to update the UK dataset to 2020. The 2020 value is obtained with Initial Year 2010 and Ending Year 2020 at The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series).
1. In Template:Inflation/UK/dataset:
Before:
| 2019 | #default= 129.159
After:
| 2019 = 129.159 | 2020 | #default= 131.082
2. In Template:Inflation/year:
- Before:
| UK|GBP = 2019
- After:
| UK|GBP = 2020
3. In Template:Inflation/fn:
- The accessdate in the line starting with
| UK =
should be updated. - The URL should be updated from https://measuringworth.com/ukearncpi/ to https://measuringworth.com/datasets/ukearncpi/
Thank you very much. ネイ (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- To editor ed. put'r there16:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Seems this can be updated to 2021 please, copied formatting from above and retrived new value of from same source.
- 1. In Template:Inflation/UK/dataset:
- Before:
| 2020 | #default= 131.082
- After:
| 2020 = 131.082 | 2021 | #default= 136.404
- 2. In Template:Inflation/year:
- Before:
| UK|GBP = 2020
- After:
| UK|GBP = 2021
- Before:
- 2. In Template:Inflation/year:
- 3. In Template:Inflation/fn:
- The accessdate in the line starting with
| UK =
should be updated.
- The accessdate in the line starting with
- Thanks, Indagate (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done. ed. put'r there01:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done.
- 3. In Template:Inflation/fn:
Formatting
It seems that when using non-named parameters (numbered arguments) for the index and amount, the template is whitespace sensitive (it shouldn't be? Update: or at least, other templates seem to handle it; I got a bit lost reading this and this). It's could be underlying Lua code, but I can't tell from here. e.g. {{inflation|NZ|100000| start_year=1970 | fmt=eq | r=-4}}
works, but not {{inflation | NZ | 100000 | start_year=1970 | fmt=eq | r=-4}}
(note the spaces around the NZ and 100000). Respectively: "equivalent to $1,670,000 in 2021" and "Error when using {{Inflation}}: |index= NZ
(parameter 1) not a recognized index.". — Jon (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Jonathanischoice The mediawiki software strips whitespace from named parameters (such as
|index= NZ
), but not positional ones like in your example above. Nothing in this template uses Lua, but if it did stripping off the whitespace would be trivial. As it is, given the number of times that the index is used, stripping whitespace from each instance would be very inefficient. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Bot searching for articles that don't already use this template and updating?
Is there a bot that is searching for articles that don't use the inflation template but could/should be? Are there discussions on why we shouldn't do this? Can we at least create a bot which finds these articles and then recommends them to editors automatically? If its a matter of creating said bot I would gladly help. MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 5 August 2022
This edit request to Template:Inflation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can the test for start_year being greater than end_year be removed? Right now I'm getting Error when using Inflation: start_year=2022 (parameter 3) is greater than end_year=2015 (parameter 4).
It would allow for use of the template in reverse calculations, like in the Minimum wage in Germany (values in 2015 euros). Tracerneo (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like a feature request. The feature currently doesn't exist per Template:Inflation#Limitations 69.203.136.65 (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Euros
This template is not usable for euros. Is there another that allows us to convert historical euros (e.g., 2013) to their present value (or whatever latest year for which there is data)? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 09:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- SpikeToronto, there are two options that come to mind. You can add Euros to this template separately and use that, or you can look through the templates of EU countries here to see if any of those are converted to Euros at some point (which I suspect some are) and use that when dealing with Euros. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Creating dataset for euros
I am going to document my work process here, in case I am doing it wrong.
There is no conversion factor in this template for euros! So I will make one.
As far as I can tell, it would be pretty simple: create Template:Inflation/EU and then create Template:Inflation/EU/dataset to populate it.
My buddy who knows quite a lot about economics tells me that you can get CSV tables from FRED that document CPI inflation for euros here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.csv?bgcolor=%23e1e9f0&chart_type=line&drp=0&fo=open%20sans&graph_bgcolor=%23ffffff&height=450&mode=fred&recession_bars=off&txtcolor=%23444444&ts=12&tts=12&width=1168&nt=0&thu=0&trc=0&show_legend=yes&show_axis_titles=yes&show_tooltip=yes&id=CPHPTT01EZM659N&scale=left&cosd=1997-01-01&coed=2022-09-01&line_color=%234572a7&link_values=false&line_style=solid&mark_type=none&mw=3&lw=2&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Monthly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&fgsnd=2020-02-01&line_index=1&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2022-12-14&revision_date=2022-12-14&nd=1997-01-01
Am I missing out on something significant? jp×g 23:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Eurostat may be more appropriate and "official" source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/hicp/data/database
- Euro area inflation will be different from European Union as a whole, as not all countries use Euro, so please keep it in mind and document appropriately.
- Maybe even adding separate inflation data for these datasets would be appropriate. Eurostat codes them as ) 00:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
What actually happens when I do this?
Let's say we have 50,000 francs in the year 1830 -- I want to know what is going on when I type the following.
- ({{formatprice|{{inflation|FR|50000|1830|r=0}}}} in {{inflation/year|FR}})
Francs were converted to Euros at 1 euro for 6.55957 FRF on 31 December 1998 -- is it giving Euros in 2022, or francs in 1998? Or something else? jp×g 10:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- JPxG, reading the data source (with the title of "Conversion coefficient of the euro or franc of one year, into euro or franc of another year"), I suspect it is currency agnostic; in others words, entering pre-conversion francs and converting that to 2022 would give you the value in francs adjusted for inflation; entering post-conversion euros and converting that to 2022 would give euros adjusted for French (not European) inflation. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Small, old calculation
I'm trying to show an equivalent amount for a pre-decimal penny from 1830, and showing the equation {{Inflation|UK|{{Pounds, shillings, and pence|d=1}}|1830|fmt=eq|cursign=£}} gives "equivalent to £0 in 2023", which isn't much of a help! Has anyone got a way to show this - even if it ends up showing a fraction of a modern amount? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- @SchroCat: You need to set the rounding to appropriate precision for each stage of the claculation, otherwise the numbers round to 0 and hence your problem:
- {{Inflation|UK|{{Pounds, shillings, and pence|d=1|round=3}}|1830|fmt=eq|cursign=£|r=2}} = equivalent to £0.45 in 2023
- Betty Logan (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Dead link
Probably because of housecleaning at the Minneapolis Federal Reserve bank web site, the US template includes a dead link. The link that works is here, but I don't know how to fix templates. If you know how to fix this one, please do. Finetooth (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think I fixed it - here is a Test[1] with the reference below. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Reference
- ^ 1634–1699: McCusker, J. J. (1997). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1700–1799: McCusker, J. J. (1992). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1800–present: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Retrieved February 29, 2024.
Final period
I'd like propose a change to this template to either remove the final period from the footnote produced or to at least make it optional by adding a "postscript" parameter as in {{
Non-footnoted footnotes
Is there an equivalent of this without the ref tags? If I'm putting the {{inflation}} info itself in a footnote, I don't want another footnote linked to from within that, I just want the whole lot inline. Does that make sense? Pseudomonas(talk) 09:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- This would really be a helpful feature. Perhaps a "noref" parameter could be added to suppress the generation of the ref tags, or even better, the template could be split, with {{Inflation-fn}} generating the ref tags, and calling upon {{Inflation-src}} to generate the contents. That way, we could call {{Inflation-src}} from within a footnote. —mjb (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Dates
The current template produces a footnote of "Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved December 7, 2010" Is there any way of producing one that could produce one as "Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved 7 December 2010"? (Or is there a version that does that already?) I've had comments from reviewers of articles who want to see all the dates in the same format if possible. Cheers. -
- This feature has been available (for US only) since 1 September 2011. It's not documented, but you just need to add the parameter
|df=yes
--Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No-country parameter handling broken
The docs say "When no country parameter is provided, or when an invalid country is provided, the generated footnote is a generic one:" but the examples, {{Inflation-fn}} and {{Inflation-fn|xyz}}, do not seem to be generating anything at all. —mjb (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Title
At it currently stands that footnote generated by this template reads "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–2008." I note, however, that the page title reads "CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (ESTIMATE) 1800-" Could the template be adjusted to show the correct title, i.e. to remove the 2008 date? Cheers -
- Titles do not take all caps from their sources
- This would be a miscitation, at the time this data was gathered, the source was 1800-2008, which is why there's a date indicating when the data was extracted. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the caps, I'm talking about putting in the CORRECT page title: "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–" What is currently there is a mis-citation. I'm proposing the correct one it used instead - and one that reflects the fact that it's gone 2008 and the templaet still works in the intervening three years. - ^ • @) 09:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Automatic Updating Indication
Some of the references specify that the values are generated automatically and some don't. I think it's important to include that the values are generated automatically and what the source/methodology is. How can I have it automatically include that info?Emschorsch (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
"Retrieved by" dates
I've noticed that the "Retrieved by" dates are not showing in footnotes, although I seem to remember that is always uaws to. Was there a decision to stop showing the date, or is this an error? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 11 April 2017
This Template:Inflation-year has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to add |UK-CAP after |UKNGDPPC and |US-CAP after |US-NGDPPC, as aliases. These are much easier for editors to remember, and the template redirects are already set up for them. Documentation and preferred use can be worked out after they're proven to work. SilverbackNet talk 03:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- @SilverbackNet: Is CAP a commonly used abbreviation for this index? If not, would something like US-PC/UK-PC (Per Capita) be a better choice? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2017
This Template:Inflation-year has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request that the UK inflation index be updated to the 2016 value. According to The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to 2016 (New Series), starting with £100 in the year 2010, that value will be £117.665 in 2016. So I have 3 requests.
- Update here.
- Update Template:Inflation-fnChange the year data was available for the UK, from 2016 to 2017.
- Update the Template:Inflation-yearUK value from 2015 to 2016.
- Note: The UKNGDPPC template (for governments and billionaires) has, of course, already been updated.
Thank you for your time. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- @50.64.119.38: Is measuringworth.com a reliable source for this information? Is there not a government source for inflation figures? Is there consensus of using RPI vs CPI? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)- @Ahecht: we currently use Measuring Worth for the US-NGDPPC (nominal GDP per capita) figures now. As for RPI vs. CPI in the UK, see this explanation from the website.
- All updated now. →14:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I know the reference was chosen in 2008 when the page was created. Thank you all. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- @50.64.119.38: Is measuringworth.com a reliable source for this information? Is there not a government source for inflation figures? Is there consensus of using RPI vs CPI? --Ahecht (TALK
Referenced calculator no longer available
The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Community Development Project link referenced by the template for U.S. dollar CPI calulations is no longer available and gives a 404 page. Something new is needed, since an archived link is pointless for a page that performs a calculation. — Marcus(talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- The MeasuringWorth website that is the source of the US-NGDPPC series also has a CPI series that can be substituted. As a bonus, their CPI series runs back to 1774 instead of 1800. I'm about to step out for dinner, but when I return, I can edit everything to switch over sources. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Or, alternately, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/community/financial-and-economic-education/cpi-calculator-information/consumer-price-index-1800 appears to be the new URL for the current source. Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 2 January 2018
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please can somebody update the index for the US entry to 2017?
i.e. Replace {{Inflation-year|US}} = 2016
with {{Inflation-year|US}} = 2017
We are getting a multitude of errors at articles such as
- Done ) 13:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 6 January 2018
This Template:Inflation-year has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the Inflation year of India to 2017. TIA! :) Anirudh Emani (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've reverted the update of the data set to include 2017 numbers because the source for the data set has not been updated for 2017 yet. Once that happens, we can update everything for 2017. Imzadi 1979 → 01:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 13 January 2018
This Template:Inflation-year has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |