British Guiana - add issuer/country(?) [Risolto]

I do not see British Guiana as a dropdown for "Issuing Authority" for adding a banknote. Is it in a sub-menu and I can't find it? I am trying to add P#12.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/British-Guiana-P-12c-1-Dollar-1-1-1942-F/232198752225?hash=item36101fc7e1:g:IxgAAOSw37tV~BBc

You have to add it under Guyana. As Stratocaster explained to me once, there is no splitting of issuers based on name changes or changes in the form of government, unless there is a change in territory and population.

We should split these two, following the example already set for British Honduras and Belize.

"You have to add it under Guyana. As Stratocaster explained to me once, there is no splitting of issuers based on name changes or changes in the form of government, unless there is a change in territory and population."
Well he is wrong - it SHOULD be split, for easy search.
Territory and population mean nothing - it is ON THIS SITE that it should be split.
Time and again this happens.

"We should split these two, following the example already set for British Honduras and Belize."
100% agree.

Cita: "ceh2019"​We should split these two, following the example already set for British Honduras and Belize.

​Who is the authority for deciding the split? And is there a thread discussion on the Belize split?

Cita: "ceh2019"​We should split these two, following the example already set for British Honduras and Belize.

​This is not quite accurate--British Honduras and Belize should actually be merged, to follow Guyana.

Actually, if there is any example you can think of that British Honduras and Belize "should" follow, those examples should likely be merged. These issuers are the remanence of our old country list, at a time where we did not have issuer sub-divisions, did not have a ruling authority field, and mostly followed Krause. However, now that we have much better ways of organization, these changes can more properly be reflected in the ruling authority section.

Cita: "ZacUK"​ "You have to add it under Guyana. As Stratocaster explained to me once, there is no splitting of issuers based on name changes or changes in the form of government, unless there is a change in territory and population."
​Well he is wrong - it SHOULD be split, for easy search.
​Territory and population mean nothing - it is ON THIS SITE that it should be split.
​Time and again this happens.

​I disagree with this. If territory means absolutely nothing, then I guess our whole country list is irrelevant. But I definitely would not call that list irrelevant--there has been a lot of work put into it to make it accurate. Of course, there are still inconsistencies, but with time, those will be fixed.

The solution to this thread is to make it so, when "British Guinea" is typed in the search, "Guyana" appears as an option. I thought this would have already been done, but doing a test, this search does not work for me.

Cita: "gyoschak"​​​Who is the authority for deciding the split? And is there a thread discussion on the Belize split?

​Catalogue administrators and higher have the final say on issuer-related things.

I am not sure if there is a thread about a discussion on Belize though--I could not find anything by searching through the issuer-related tickets.

So now we've opened up a can of worms and instead of things getting better they're going to get worse?

Cita: "ceh2019"​So now we've opened up a can of worms and instead of things getting better they're going to get worse?

​I do not think so. This can of worms has been opened long ago, which we are trying to close by placing everything back in a logical order. This takes time, of course.

British Guiana should be listed separately from Guyana.

The same thing applies to Belize being separate from British Honduras, South West Africa being separate from Namibia, & Swaziland being separate from eSwatini.

Aidan.

Surely banknotes and coins should be listed under the name that is on them? As that is how 99% of people will search for them? If the country changes its name we need a better way of listing accordingly.

Cita: "peterjhalford"​Surely banknotes and coins should be listed under the name that is on them? As that is how 99% of people will search for them? If the country changes its name we need a better way of listing accordingly.

​
Only notes & coins inscribed 'eSwatini' should be under 'eSwatini'.

All issues from 1974 to 2017 should be under 'Swaziland'.

Aidan.

Cita: "BCNumismatics"​

Cita: "peterjhalford"​Surely banknotes and coins should be listed under the name that is on them? As that is how 99% of people will search for them? If the country changes its name we need a better way of listing accordingly.

​​
​Only notes & coins inscribed 'eSwatini' should be under 'eSwatini'.
​
​All issues from 1974 to 2017 should be under 'Swaziland'.
​
​Aidan.

​absolutely agreed! very confusing

Cita: "Sulfur"​​​I do not think so. This can of worms has been opened long ago, which we are trying to close by placing everything back in a logical order. This takes time, of course.

​Surely the logical thing to do is to list coins and notes under the names on them, just like we give the denominations as appears on them whenever possible? Not only is it logical but it makes things much simpler. No need to argue over when to split and when not to split, just reflect what's on the coins and notes. After all, they're what we collect.
Yes it means we have Ceylon and Sri Lanka as separate sections, but then we group them under the modern-day name of Sri Lanka and all's well. Nothing is hidden, everything can be seen clearly. Let's also remember that this particular thread began with someone looking for British Guiana, hidden inside Guyana, whilst Demerara and Essequibo are listed separately. No one could call that logical.

Agreed.

Cita: "ceh2019"​

Cita: "Sulfur"​​​I do not think so. This can of worms has been opened long ago, which we are trying to close by placing everything back in a logical order. This takes time, of course.
​
​

​​Surely the logical thing to do is to list coins and notes under the names on them, just like we give the denominations as appears on them whenever possible? Not only is it logical but it makes things much simpler. No need to argue over when to split and when not to split, just reflect what's on the coins and notes. After all, they're what we collect.
​Yes it means we have Ceylon and Sri Lanka as separate sections, but then we group them under the modern-day name of Sri Lanka and all's well. Nothing is hidden, everything can be seen clearly. Let's also remember that this particular thread began with someone looking for British Guiana, hidden inside Guyana, whilst Demerara and Essequibo are listed separately. No one could call that logical.

​British Guiana was formed after Demerara and Essequibo has been merged with Berbice. So this is a case of territory and population change. Probably this is why D&E is listed under Guyana.

If you search 'Swaziland', 'Eswatini' is brought up as the only option. This should be the case with British Guinea and Guyana; however, I imagine that was just overlooked.

Cita: "ceh2019"​​Surely the logical thing to do is to list coins and notes under the names on them, just like we give the denominations as appears on them whenever possible? Not only is it logical but it makes things much simpler. No need to argue over when to split and when not to split, just reflect what's on the coins and notes. After all, they're what we collect.
​Yes it means we have Ceylon and Sri Lanka as separate sections, but then we group them under the modern-day name of Sri Lanka and all's well. Nothing is hidden, everything can be seen clearly. Let's also remember that this particular thread began with someone looking for British Guiana, hidden inside Guyana, whilst Demerara and Essequibo are listed separately. No one could call that logical.

​If we did split pages based solely on the name change, I imagine this would make more agruments of when to split and when not to split.

If we separate Swaziland and Eswatini based on names, I guess we should also separate the United Arab Republic from Egypt--it was a name change and a political change. And if we separated the United Arab Republic, I guess we can also divide Egypt into the Sulatante of Egypt, the Kingdom of Egypt, and the Arab Republic of Egypt--those were all political changes, after all.

However, those above names are all completely reflected in the ruling authority section, just like how the differences between "Swaziland" and "Eswatini" are also reflected in that very same section.

I think the better solution here would be to "search by ruling authority" regardless of the country. We cannot do that as of this post--we must select a country first--however, I think that would be a valid suggestion.

British Guiana is listed as a separate entity in the major catalogues, such as Krause (for coins) & Pick (for banknotes).

This should be the case here in Numista as well.

http://en.ucoin.net has British Guiana listed under 'Extinct states'.

Aidan.

FYI, there is no British Guiana issuer/authority option within Guyana when trying to add a banknote.

Cita: "gyoschak"​FYI, there is no British Guiana issuer/authority option within Guyana when trying to add a banknote.

​
Same story applies to the coin section as well.

Both of those need to be rectified.

Aidan.

The ruling authorities for Coins and Banknotes are the same, so everything should be identical between the two.

Cita: "gyoschak"​FYI, there is no British Guiana issuer/authority option within Guyana when trying to add a banknote.

​And that I did not notice.

It seems we call British Guiana "British colony". I searched the forum, and I could not find a request to modify this wording; however, a request like that should be simple enough to make, if you are interested. It is definitely a good point, I think.

So let’s say for example, that someone wants to add British Guiana P#12 to the banknote catalog. How would they do it? There’s no “British Colony” option, no “British Guiana”, there are these:

If I am understanding correctly, currently one should just add the note under issuing authority “Guyana”


but then the question becomes “shouldn’t there be an issuing entity of British Guiana?”

Of note, I feel there is no proper currency selection to enter for this 1937-1942 $1 dollar note:

There is already a 1 Dollar dated 1 January 1942 listed here;

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note216080.html .

Definitely a case for being listed under 'British Guiana'.

Aidan.

Cita: "gyoschak"​If I am understanding correctly, currently one should just add the note under issuing authority “Guyana”
​
​but then the question becomes “shouldn’t there be an issuing entity of British Guiana?”
​
​Of note, I feel there is no proper currency selection to enter for this 1937-1942 $1 dollar note:

​Yes, the issuing authority is "Guyana".

Next, there is the ruling authority section. This is where we say "British colony", although I think it would be a good suggestion to change this to say "British Guiana":


The issuing entity is used for those who issued the notes, which is often banks. We only have "Bank of Guyana" listed; however, we would need "Barclays Bank", "Royal Bank of Canada", and "Government of British Guiana" all added. These must be requested on the forum.

And for the currency, we might also need something new added here, as these were denominated in Dollars, and we have no "Dollar" currency listed for this time-frame yet.

-----

And with all that being said, adding or modifying ruling authorities, issuing entities, and currencies is all outside my power, so it might help if these were all requested individually under their correct tickets.

British Guiana definitely needs a separate section like Demerara & Essequibo.

Of course, monarchs' reigns & issuing banks should be added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_banknote-issuing_institutions .

Aidan.

The issue of Egypt is, I'm afraid, a red herring. Although the UAR encompased both Egypt and Syria, it never issued coins as an entity, these continued to be issued separately for the two states. We are still waiting for the ruling authorities to be stripped out of the currencies for Egypt and Syria so we can have single currencies for both.

I entered one too, so now there's 2:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note284918.html
I submitted it 2 days ago, but it is "validated" now. If you ignore the tape at the edges, my new entry might look a little better than the old one. It also has some additional information.

Sulfur-- I guess I should request the two be merged in a new thread, not message an individual? (I've finally decided to catalog my notes here, and I'm only on letter 'C', so I'm sure I will come across more of this.) Additionally, we start new threads to request "British Guinana" in the drop-downs, not message an individual?

Cita: "BCNumismatics"​British Guiana definitely needs a separate section like Demerara & Essequibo.

​Demerara and Essequibo is actually geographically different than Guyana, so this would work as a separate issuer, I think. But British Guiana and Guyana are only name changes for the same area.

Cita: "ceh2019"​The issue of Egypt is, I'm afraid, a red herring. Although the UAR encompased both Egypt and Syria, it never issued coins as an entity, these continued to be issued separately for the two states.

​You are correct that this union did not issue coins under one entity--in fact, if they did, the United Arab Republic would work as its own issuer based on our current guidelines (because the area of the United Arab Republic is geographically unique to anything we currently have). However, if we were to split countries only based on name changes, I'd guess we would need a United Arab Republic under both Egypt and Syria, as this was a name change.

This is not a good idea, of course, but that is exactly what I am getting at--if we start splitting countries based on name changes, country splitting would still not be simple at all, and there would still be plenty of debates about what to split and what to combine.

Cita: "gyoschak"​Sulfur-- I guess I should request the two be merged in a new thread, not message an individual? (I've finally decided to catalog my notes here, and I'm only on letter 'C', so I'm sure I will come across more of this.) Additionally, we start new threads to request "British Guinana" in the drop-downs, not message an individual?

​The duplicate is deleted. Thank you.

And it would be prefered to start new threads about these British Guiana drop-downs. These are the relevant tickets, for all those drop-downs I mentioned above:

• requesting the creation or the modification of a currency in the catalogue
  
• requesting the creation or the modification of a ruling authority
  
• requesting the creation or the modification of an issuing entity
  

For requests about Issuing authorities, these would be "creation or modification of a country" requests; however, a British Guiana request has already been created and rejected.

Cita: "Sulfur"​

Cita: "ceh2019"​The issue of Egypt is, I'm afraid, a red herring. Although the UAR encompased both Egypt and Syria, it never issued coins as an entity, these continued to be issued separately for the two states.

​​You are correct that this union did not issue coins under one entity--in fact, if they did, the United Arab Republic would work as its own issuer based on our current guidelines (because the area of the United Arab Republic is geographically unique to anything we currently have). However, if we were to split countries only based on name changes, I'd guess we would need a United Arab Republic under both Egypt and Syria, as this was a name change.
​
​This is not a good idea, of course, but that is exactly what I am getting at--if we start splitting countries based on name changes, country splitting would still not be simple at all, and there would still be plenty of debates about what to split and what to combine.

​Sorry but there was no name change. The names Egypt and Syria continued to appear on the coins. As I said, this is a red herring which is being used to justify a whole host of inconsistencies.

Cita: "ceh2019"​​​Sorry but there was no name change. The names Egypt and Syria continued to appear on the coins. As I said, this is a red herring which is being used to justify a whole host of inconsistencies.

Except that there was a name change, and that it does appear on the coins:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces17102.html

According to the translation, the coin says this was denominated in Syrian Piastres (which makes sense because the two areas of the United Arab Republic issued their own coins), and goes on to the list the United Arab Republic on both the obverse and reverse, including using the coat of arms of the United Arab Republic.

Examples from Egypt specifically list "Egypt" at the bottom of the reverse, but like with Syria, "United Arab Republic" is written on both the obverse and reverse, and they also use the coat of arms of the United Arab Republic.

If you do not think any of that is valid, then I guess that means some name changes are more valid than others. And that, in itself, would be problematic, and could be debated (like what we are doing right now).

South West Africa needs a separate section from Namibia, as does German South West Africa.

Aidan.

It's a strange "name change" when the old name continues to be used. As I've said before, use what's on the coins and notes. Egypt and Syria remained on the coins and notes, so we should continue to use them. Do you have any other examples where you think the rule of "use what's on the coins and notes" would create problems?

Cita: "Sulfur"​

Cita: "gyoschak"​Sulfur-- I guess I should request the two be merged in a new thread, not message an individual? (I've finally decided to catalog my notes here, and I'm only on letter 'C', so I'm sure I will come across more of this.) Additionally, we start new threads to request "British Guinana" in the drop-downs, not message an individual?

​​The duplicate is deleted. Thank you.
​
​And it would be prefered to start new threads about these British Guiana drop-downs. These are the relevant tickets, for all those drop-downs I mentioned above:
​

• requesting the creation or the modification of a currency in the catalogue
  ​
  
• requesting the creation or the modification of a ruling authority
  ​
  
• requesting the creation or the modification of an issuing entity
  ​
  

​
​For requests about Issuing authorities, these would be "creation or modification of a country" requests; however, a British Guiana request has already been created and rejected.

​This horse is almost deceased, but to make sure I understand correctly:
We won't be adding a "British Guiana" section anywhere within the drop-down menus, due to previous rejection. But we will be keeping British Honduras/Palestine/etc. I'm trying to understand why this is, and even with all of the previous discussion, I cannot determine the reason.

As an aside, as someone who has not lived under the crown of Her Majesty, it is sometimes difficult to not feel like I'm in some way being punished for not understanding the intricacies of the history of British rule throughout all of history. I'm sure I'm just taking too many crazy pills...

British Honduras and others will be removed too.

Gyoschak, I can see your problem but can assure you that most Brits wouldn't link Belize to British Honduras or know that it was British Guiana that became Guyana and not French or Dutch Guiana. Personaly, I give the horse better odds than most that ran the Grand National on Saturday given the obvious strength of feeling on this matter, not to mention the obvious (and simple) logic of the alternative proposed.

Cita: "ceh2019"​It's a strange "name change" when the old name continues to be used. As I've said before, use what's on the coins and notes. Egypt and Syria remained on the coins and notes, so we should continue to use them. Do you have any other examples where you think the rule of "use what's on the coins and notes" would create problems?

​It might be strange, but that is history (and on the Syrian coins specifically, they say Syian Paistres for the currency--not the country--so your statement could be partially debated there). And the reason I chose that example was because it was the strangest example I could think of.

If we were to say "use what's on the coins and notes", this would definitely pose some problems with other counties. Myamnar/Burma was a change in translation, and not every post-1989 coin has an English translation on it. Some coins of the Chinese provinces use different English transliteraltions on their coins (with the differences being a couple letters, like Kiangsi versus Kiangsea), so while the coins say something different, the names were the same. Yugoslavia would be fractured, and I imagine there could be conflicts within how to divide Iran. And many countries do not even say their name on their items (like the United Kingdom or many ancient issuers), so if we use only what appears on the coins or notes, this would not help for those countries at all.

And those are just the examples that neglect the official names, which include "Kingdom" or "Republic". If we were to split by names, we would also have to consider those official names, meaning we would basically just be fracturing our ruling authority section into issuers.

But because Numista has a very comprehensive search function, I think it is much easier to divide countries by geography rather than politics, while still having everything searchable. Of course, we would still need some improvements in those search functions, but I do not think splitting the issuers is the way to go.

With that being said, on the coin side, there is a thread about Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh. In that thread, someone made a suggestion that I think might help with this changing-names issue. And if you do not feel like going through the entire thread, start your reading at April 11, 2021.

Cita: "gyoschak"​​This horse is almost deceased, but to make sure I understand correctly:
​We won't be adding a "British Guiana" section anywhere within the drop-down menus, due to previous rejection. But we will be keeping British Honduras/Palestine/etc. I'm trying to understand why this is, and even with all of the previous discussion, I cannot determine the reason.

You are correct about British Guiana: this is best to be reflected in the ruling authority section.

​As allexis said, British Honduras would be combined with Belize (the separation would also be in the ruling authority section).

British Palestine would be uneffected, as the territory of British Palestine included modern-day Israel and Palestine (meaning this is a geographically unique area).

So the gist is that we would have "Belize (including British Honduras)" and "Guyana (including British Guiana)" in the titles? It's better than nothing. However, I have still to see any explanation as to why this is being done, only a series of red herrings where it is claimed name changes have occured that would split up countries unnecessarily. What do we gain by having British Honduras hidden inside Belize? Is it just to shorten the list of countries displayed?

That is basically correct. In the country list, we would see:

• Guyana
  

But if you start typing "Br-", you would see:

• Guyana (British Guiana)
  

That feature is not yet accepted--or even proposed yet, technically (although I will propose it in a few days, if no one beats me to it)--but I feel like that would help quite a bit. I understand that it would be confusing if you type "British Guiana" and the only option is "Guyana", with no context as to why, and I feel like this would help.

And just because there are confusing examples, it does not mean they are red herrings--that is just politics, and every example must be considered.

If this is adopted, it won't be enough to have British Guiana or British Honduras only appear during a search. They must appear in the country list somewhere, along with all the other names you are proposing to hide.
It isn't that your examples are confusing. I understand them all very well and they present absolutely no justification for your proposals. Is that all you have? Nothing positive as a consequence of hiding these names, just the avoidance of perceived problems?
We must remember that we are creating a catalogue. That requires the accurate recording of the material we are cataloguing. Your proposals introduce a great many inaccuracies, which is why there is so much opposition.

Hello,

British Guiana (and Guyane britannique on the French side) can now be searched and will point to Guyana.

I also support a visible queue in the search, but this has to be proposed separately in a thread marked for an improvement to the website for Xavier to see it.