Should this Gibraltar token be in the Exonumia Section

This has the type of Token yet is in the coin catalogue. Should it be moved?
2 Quartos (Robert Keeling) - Gibraltar – Numista

There are eight others besides this one. Clearly some pieces called tokens functioned as normal coins, e.g., this Irish 10 pence piece. The question is, when does a piece called a token become sufficiently official to be called a coin? I'm not convinced any of the Gibraltar tokens pass that test.

The fact it states PAYABLE AT ROBERT KEELING & Sons, indicates it is a token

Yes, that's just it, the very limited redeemability is the problem. I wonder if we need to distinguish "Bank Tokens" from all other tokens? Then we can keep pieces like these
Lower Canada ½ Penny
UK 3 Shillings
Sweden ½ Skilling
with coins and move all other tokens to exonumia.

Sounds like something to look into, would the bank token have to be the national bank or government dept, which 2 of the 3 you show are, are there any tokens from private banks?

That's one of the issues that would have to be decided on. However, I think any real bank should be included, since we'd put their paper issues in the banknotes section, so I can't see why we would then put their tokens in exonumia. You're right to point out that the Swedish Riksgäld wasn't a bank but I can't think of a better term than "Bank Token".

I never understood why tokens that were used as currency are in the Exonumia section at all in the first place.

In any case this doesn't seem any less legitimate than (most) Conder tokens (one blatant example), or a large fraction of notgeld for that matter. If we're banishing this type to Exonumia because it was only nominally valid in that one place then for consistently we should banish most Conder tokens to there as well.

Cita: "January First-of-May"​I never understood why tokens that were used as currency are in the Exonumia section at all in the first place.
​
​In any case this doesn't seem any less legitimate than (most) Conder tokens (one blatant example), or a large fraction of notgeld for that matter. If we're banishing this type to Exonumia because it was only nominally valid in that one place then for consistently we should banish most Conder tokens to there as well.

I'm not sure I'd use the term banish but I do think most if not all "Conder" tokens belong in exonumia. However, if it is felt that this is being done to hide them then we need to consider how they are presented and linked to the real coins.

Cita: "ceh2019"​​I'm not sure I'd use the term banish but I do think most if not all "Conder" tokens belong in exonumia. However, if it is felt that this is being done to hide them then we need to consider how they are presented and linked to the real coins.

​It seems to me that some exonumia were used for trade (as in Gibraltar where we see worn coins), others for specific purposes (bus fares), others are pure gimmicks and jokes, and others are somewhat in between.

I file those I believe were used as currency with my coins, and I believe those are the KM# Tn tokens included in KM.

It would be nice if there were a way to search Coins and the the "used in trade" Exonumia together. With the ability to expand the listing to include the bus fare tokens in case the "coin" I'm trying to identify isn't really a coin.

But here's the rub for Numista: I don't know how to create a clear dividing line that everyone will accept between the types of exonumia.