Furthermore, I have three additional suggestions:
⸻
1. We currently list in the Features panel (example): Issuer Vanuatu Period New Hebrides › Anglo-French condominium (1906-1980)
I propose that this changes to: Issuer New Hebrides (modern-day Vanuatu) Period Anglo-French condominium (1906-1980)
@Xavier: we can use the key_information field in the database. We would just need to make an exception for the current/latest group, so we don't display Vanuatu (modern-day Vanuatu).
⸻
2. Group items in the catalogue by country names regardless of the sorting criterion selected. Currently, this is only done when sorting by ruling authority. This is especially important when sorting by reference:
The KM numbers for Vanuatu are mixed with the ones for the New Hebrides, resulting in something hardly usable.
My proposal is to group all items under two main headings (in addition to the currencies): first New Hebrides (and list all KMs for New Hebrides) and then Vanuatu (with all its corresponding KMs). This would again apply just to what we flag with key_information in the database as a country name.
⸻
3. Add the former names of countries below the title:
with links to a filtered search result as proposed here.
⸻
@Xavier: we could maybe have three possible values in key_information to avoid displaying all the names of the Chinese dinasties.
What will appear on the main country list? Will the earlier names remain hidden? If so, it's a downvote from me. If we once again see the actual country names in that list, this should address all the issues created when the old names were removed. I'm glad to see that the point about catalogue numbers has borne fruit after all the other problems this created were ignored.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "ceh2019"What will appear on the main country list? Will the earlier names remain hidden? If so, it's a downvote from me. If we once again see the actual country names in that list, this should address all the issues created when the old names were removed. I'm glad to see that the point about catalogue numbers has borne fruit after all the other problems this created were ignored.
Agree. If I find a coin from Belgian Congo and I'm a first time user of numista, I would certainly NOT look for the Democratic Republic of Congo to find my coin. Come down to Earth, and don't dream in the clouds of "numista wisdom".
In my suggestion that stratocaster mentioned (posted in the Numista Team forum, although the idea itself was discussed in public threads), that was specifically addressing the naming that appears in the country list.
For an example of what that suggestion is about, if you type "N" in the country search, you will see:
Vanuatu (New Hebrides)
Basically, the name you are typing would appear in parenthesis at the end of the most recent name.
Cita: "Sulfur"I support this.
In my suggestion that stratocaster mentioned (posted in the Numista Team forum, although the idea itself was discussed in public threads), that was specifically addressing the naming that appears in the country list.
For an example of what that suggestion is about, if you type "N" in the country search, you will see:
Vanuatu (New Hebrides)
Basically, the name you are typing would appear in parenthesis at the end of the most recent name.
But will it only work in the search? It needs to be in the main list as well.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "ceh2019"But will it only work in the search?
If my suggestion is implemented exactly as I wrote it, then yes. If we were to permanently include the alternate names in parenthesis, those alternate names would start clogging the country list. For example, take "Fengtien Province (Fengtian / Liaoning / Mukden)"--for my suggestion, based on what you start to type, only the relevant name would appear in parenthesis.
Cita: "ceh2019"It needs to be in the main list as well.
The biggest question I have is: why?
There are two ways to find an issuer in the country list:
Browse the country list to find what you are looking for, or
Use the search function to find what you are looking for.
If you are using Option 1, you must already know that New Hebrides was a previous name of Vanuatu. Before the merger, New Hebrides was a sub-section of Vanuatu, after all, so it is not like "New Hebrides" was alphabetically categorized between "New Caledonia" and "New Zealand". And so, if people are using Option 1, they really should not need to see the name "New Hebrides" to understand where the coins are.
Of course, there will be people who know nothing about the history of Vanuatu who will try using Option 1. But if this is the case, they will have just as much luck finding New Hebrides now as when New Hebrides was a sub-issuer of Vanuatu. And if this is the case, they will likely resort to Option 2.
With that being said, if you use Option 2, you do not need to know anything about the history of New Hebrides. Of course, typing "New Hebrides" and having "Vanuatu" as the only option--without any context--is definitely confusing, and so my suggestion will eliminate that confusion because, when the user even types an "N", they will see "Vanuatu (New Hebrides)".
So I really do not see a reason to include "New Hebrides" as a permanent name in the country list because, if users are confused, they will try Option 2, and any possible confusion should be solved.
Cita: "ZacUK"Quote: There is already this proposal from Sulfur
That link will not be viewable by members - only the team.
Quote: Ceylon / Sri Lanka
That link will not be viewable by members - only the referees.
That last one is also my thread.
To solve this problem, could you possibly move both those threads to the public forums? Apparently, they might even be dealt with faster in the public forums because there is a better chance of them having higher up-votes. And as I am the author of those threads, I would be perfectly alright with moving them to the public.
To answer the question of why they need to be in the main country list, first, there will be plenty of people who will use the search function of their browser within the list page. Second, this will allow New Hebrides to be selected on it's own (as was possible before), rather than always having it as a part of something bigger.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I don't get you point? Sulfur's suggestion hasn't been implemented, so of course Zaïre isn't searchable.
I'm honestly ok with his proposal. I would prefer that colonial and post colonial governments be separated. If they must be under the same issurer, then it must be blindingly obvious that they are separate.
(Obviously countries that only have name changes, like Eswatini/Swaziland or Myanmar/Burma, should be the same issuer. Anyone who says otherwise just wants to increase their country count.)
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
Cita: "Some_Nerd"(Obviously countries that only have name changes, like Eswatini/Swaziland or Myanmar/Burma, should be the same issuer. Anyone who says otherwise just wants to increase their country count.)
There may be some that think like that but really it's about being correct. However, your two examples are thorny ones to do with a change in language (for eSwatini/Swaziland) and two distinct local names (Myanmar/Burma). Where it's more clear cut is Ceylon/Sri Lanka. Listing a Ceylonese coin from 1815 as "Sri Lankan" is simply wrong and we shouldn't even think of doing so.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "Some_Nerd"(Obviously countries that only have name changes, like Eswatini/Swaziland or Myanmar/Burma, should be the same issuer. Anyone who says otherwise just wants to increase their country count.)
There may be some that think like that but really it's about being correct. However, your two examples are thorny ones to do with a change in language (for eSwatini/Swaziland) and two distinct local names (Myanmar/Burma). Where it's more clear cut is Ceylon/Sri Lanka. Listing a Ceylonese coin from 1815 as "Sri Lankan" is simply wrong and we shouldn't even think of doing so.
I agree, in SCWC that's how it's done and for the country names (not issuers) it's much better in my opinion. I have 42.200 different coins in my collection and will go on using the names established in SCWC. I'm not a history buff, but a coin collector!
Taiwan and China, peoples republic, are nicely separated in SCWC as well, in numista I don't know!
Cita: "ceh2019"To answer the question of why they need to be in the main country list, first, there will be plenty of people who will use the search function of their browser within the list page.
Well, anyone who chooses to do that is setting themselves up to fail.
Numista has a very comprehensive search function--you can locate your coin using basically any aspect imaginable. And yet the member will choose to use their browser search, which is completely unrelated to Numista? The vast majority of our issuers cannot even be found by that type of search solely because they are under "See sub-sections" headers. But of course, using Numista's search will find all issuers on Numista.
But that also doesn't change what I said before. If the member sees they cannot find New Hebrides using their browser search, they will likely try to utilize Numista's own search, going for Option 2.
Cita: "ceh2019"Second, this will allow New Hebrides to be selected on it's own (as was possible before), rather than always having it as a part of something bigger.
And of course, I knew this would be a reason--to go back to the status quo because it is familiar. I knew this because it has been mentioned in many previous threads, so I do not think I need to elaborate on the reasons why I am against this (at least, anything I say will be a repeat of before)...
Cita: "ngdawa"How is this better visibility?
This is actually unrelated to my suggestion (because, if you go to the country list right now and type "Ceylon", "Sri Lanka" will appear--there is just no context as to why).
I guess the search in My Coins and My Banknotes does not support the search of alternate names. I will make a suggestion later today to correct this.
Cita: "Sjoelund"Taiwan and China, peoples republic, are nicely separated in SCWC as well, in numista I don't know!
To answer this remark: the People's Republic of China and Taiwan will not be merged--they are two very distinct geographical areas with completely different governments, existing simultaneously. This is very different than a simple name change.
The Empire of China and the Republic of China, on the other hand, will likely be merged eventually.
Cita: "ZacUK"Quote: There is already this proposal from Sulfur
That link will not be viewable by members - only the team.
Quote: Ceylon / Sri Lanka
That link will not be viewable by members - only the referees.
That last one is also my thread.
To solve this problem, could you possibly move both those threads to the public forums? Apparently, they might even be dealt with faster in the public forums because there is a better chance of them having higher up-votes. And as I am the author of those threads, I would be perfectly alright with moving them to the public.
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic109527.html (to forum15)
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic94917.html (to forum14)
Cita: "Sjoelund"Taiwan and China, peoples republic, are nicely separated in SCWC as well, in numista I don't know!
To answer this remark: the People's Republic of China and Taiwan will not be merged--they are two very distinct geographical areas with completely different governments, existing simultaneously. This is very different than a simple name change.
The Empire of China and the Republic of China, on the other hand, will likely be merged eventually.
Until Taiwan declared themselves they and China were the same on any school map? Where's your logic? Look at germany and loosen your mind set.
Cita: "Sulfur"
And of course, I knew this would be a reason--to go back to the status quo because it is familiar. I knew this because it has been mentioned in many previous threads, so I do not think I need to elaborate on the reasons why I am against this (at least, anything I say will be a repeat of before)...
What an argument? I think I don't need to eloborate why I'm against Sulfur's suggestion, I just am.
Cita: "ZacUK" OK - both moved to those locations. Thanks
Thank you as well.
Cita: "Sjoelund"Until Taiwan declared themselves they and China were the same on any school map? Where's your logic? Look at germany and loosen your mind set.
You mean before Taiwan became a micronation, which is definitely independent from modern-day China? Before that point, Taiwan was a province of China (or a colony of Japan, or its own independent government, or a region of Fujian--it depends how far back you want to go). However, regardless of what its status was, its coins circulated in an area geographically distinct from the rest of China.
I am honestly not sure why you are trying to bring Taiwan into this... it is not comparable to any of the mergers that have been happening.
Cita: "Sjoelund"What an argument? I think I don't need to eloborate why I'm against Sulfur's suggestion, I just am.
Saying the same thing to the same few people is a waste of time. Even reading those two threads may be a waste of time; however, those probably cover everything relevant, in regards to why we shouldn't return to the status quo. And of course, those are not the only examples on Numista--they are just likely the most comprehensive ones.
Good evening everyone, I will try to be brief and express my opinion on several points. I think this will be the last time I try to explain my point of view, since I have already given it several times without any results.
1. The most important point is why was something changed that was correct at all levels?
2. Reading many topics related to this country/issuer theme, the vast majority of users who have expressed their opinion, this was always contrary to the changes that were being made. Still, they continued to be made.
3. I see that different solutions are proposed here, which implies that at least it is recognized that there is a problem. The really valid solution is something simpler: to return to the previous classification system, but of course, that is to recognize that a mistake was made, and that does not fall within the standards of the human being.
4. As my spirit is extremely democratic, I will accept what the majority decides (in this case it seems that I will have to accept what a minority proposes), but that is even covered by that commented spirit.
5. And last, in case my option, after all, was not clear: Please, go back to the previous classification system.
I'm sorry for all this rambling and, as always, I hope I haven't upset anyone (that's never my intention).
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Cita: "oynbcn"Good evening everyone, I will try to be brief and express my opinion on several points. I think this will be the last time I try to explain my point of view, since I have already given it several times without any results.
1. The most important point is why was something changed that was correct at all levels?
2. Reading many topics related to this country/issuer theme, the vast majority of users who have expressed their opinion, this was always contrary to the changes that were being made. Still, they continued to be made.
3. I see that different solutions are proposed here, which implies that at least it is recognized that there is a problem. The really valid solution is something simpler: to return to the previous classification system, but of course, that is to recognize that a mistake was made, and that does not fall within the standards of the human being.
4. As my spirit is extremely democratic, I will accept what the majority decides (in this case it seems that I will have to accept what a minority proposes), but that is even covered by that commented spirit.
5. And last, in case my option, after all, was not clear: Please, go back to the previous classification system.
I'm sorry for all this rambling and, as always, I hope I haven't upset anyone (that's never my intention).
Spoken out of my heart! You haven't upset anyone else than a certain "I know what's best for all of you".
From Wikipedia entry for Taiwan. 'Both the ROC and the PRC still officially (constitutionally) claim mainland China and the Taiwan Area as part of their respective territories[citation needed]. In reality, the PRC rules only Mainland China and has no control of but claims Taiwan as part of its territory under its "One China Principle". The ROC, which only rules the Taiwan Area (composed of Taiwan and its nearby minor islands), became known as "Taiwan" after its largest island, (an instance of pars pro toto). Constitutional reform in 1991 amended electoral laws to focus on the territory controlled by the Republic of China, increasingly referred to as "the Republic of China on Taiwan" or simply "Taiwan" .
After the 2008 election of Ma Ying-jeou, he again asserted that mainland China is part of Republic of China territory according to its constitution, and, in 2013, he stated that relations between PRC and ROC are not between countries but "regions of the same country".'
To me, this means Taiwan should be a subset of China. Both sides claim Taiwan is a part of China, not an independent nation. It could be considered a subset of China, Republic of if that issuer needs to be maintained.
I would like to bring the discussion back to the original suggestions in the thread. If anyone has relevant feedback or suggestions, they are more than welcome.
This thread is not about splitting issuers based on name changes. This was discussed and decided here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic87274.html
There was a majority supporting the merges. I was among the only ones opposing this idea and even suggesting further splits.
Now that this has been adopted, we should accept that there are other members with opinions different to ours and move forward, be constructive about finding solutions for the issues that occurred, and find the best way to implement this properly. There is no correct and incorrect way. Both ways can work just fine and it's very disappointing to see so much animosity. It's a website that's supposed to bring people together around their passion and for me it's disheartening and completely demotivating to see insults and so many misleading arguments towards other fellow volunteers who dedicate their time to Numista.
Cita: "stratocaster"I would like to bring the discussion back to the original suggestions in the thread. If anyone has relevant feedback or suggestions, they are more than welcome.
This thread is not about splitting issuers based on name changes. This was discussed and decided here:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic87274.html
There was a majority supporting the merges. I was among the only ones opposing this idea and even suggesting further splits.
Now that this has been adopted, we should accept that there are other members with opinions different to ours and move forward, be constructive about finding solutions for the issues that occurred, and find the best way to implement this properly. There is no correct and incorrect way. Both ways can work just fine and it's very disappointing to see so much animosity. It's a website that's supposed to bring people together around their passion and for me it's disheartening and completely demotivating to see insults and so many misleading arguments towards other fellow volunteers who dedicate their time to Numista.
You are not the only one dedicating your time to numista. I think I enrich numista quite a lot as well in a good, neutral way? Maybe my documentations are not according to your standards, but to the normal numista members they seem to be OK. So I'm happy, that I bring something useful into the numista community and that's all. If I feel it's worth protesting gainst taken decisions (never voted upon), I feel I have my full right to do so?
Cita: "stratocaster"This thread is not about splitting issuers based on name changes. This was discussed and decided here:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic87274.html
There was a majority supporting the merges. I was among the only ones opposing this idea and even suggesting further splits.
So now we see what you've been hiding behind! A thread about Austria was hijacked to bulldoze through totally unrelated mergers. Let's reopen that debate properly (with an appropriate title) so that all of us who had no idea what was really being discussed can put our points (and votes) forward. Then let's see what the majority wants, before any more mergers are pushed through. This current proposal doesn't fix the problem if it doesn't restore the country list to something like what it was before.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I just discovered this thread and it enlightened me quite a lot about the recurring friction I'm witnessing about issuers' list since I became admin.
My 2 cents in the context:
- I understand now that the way one catalog cut issuers seems to be one major motivation for some users' request that Numista just copy it, to ease life of collectors who use heavily this specific catalog; personnally I dont think one catalog should have specific place in our thinking (probably because most issuers I'm referee for are pre-1500 so I dont even own this catalog); it is written in our Guidelines by the way that our typology can naturally differ from other publishers' choices.
- I dont understand at all the arguments about how deleting a main issuer would be preventing users to find their coin if the name used on it is not displayed in the main list. When you type the lettering of any coin in the search engine, the result will give you your coin as result anyway. This argument would mean users browse indefinitely a country's list instead of using search engine when they try to identify their coin, which I find very dubious. Lettering field is made for that.
- I feel there may be a gap between two visions of Numista: one “naturalist” stating a coin is existing per se and only what's written on it is the truth and accurate ("Zaire is written on it = Zaire is the issuer") VERSUS one seeing Numismatics as a Social science, meaning historical field of knowledge where what's written on it is not necessarily literally the most accurate way to sort it ("Zaire was just a previous name of current RDC and this country is the same object historically speaking = issuer is RDC"). I'm definitely more fond of 2nd approach but am pretty sure UX and technical solutions can reconcile both needs. I know search engine already does, and other suggestions launched in this thread are great ideas too.
- I feel there may be a gap between two visions of Numista: one “naturalist” stating a coin is existing per se and only what's written on it is the truth and accurate ("Zaire is written on it = Zaire is the issuer") VERSUS one seeing Numismatics as a Social science, meaning historical field of knowledge where what's written on it is not necessarily literally the most accurate way to sort it ("Zaire was just a previous name of current RDC and this country is the same object historically speaking = issuer is RDC"). I'm definitely more fond of 2nd approach but am pretty sure UX and technical solutions can reconcile both needs. I know search engine already does, and other suggestions launched in this thread are great ideas too.
You may be right to think of Numismatics as a social science but what we are doing here is writing a catalogue. A catalogue can then be used to write essays or books where, for example, Zaïre is viewed as a phase in the history of the country currently called the DRC. However, that essay or book can't be written well if the catalogue doesn't get its facts right.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Numista was a coin catalog first and foremost. Now I start to doubt, if the priority is still on the coins. If somebody wants to write a historical catalog related to coins, then go and do it somewhere, but not in Numista.
Numista was a coin catalog first and foremost. Now I start to doubt, if the priority is still on the coins. If somebody wants to write a historical catalog related to coins, then go and do it somewhere, but not in Numista.
It is where we disagree: both can be done together. When we research informations about issuers, currencies' succession, ruling authorities etc we are doing historical typology work already. Which are facts too. Just not facts written on the coin, but still numismatics.
Numista was a coin catalog first and foremost. Now I start to doubt, if the priority is still on the coins. If somebody wants to write a historical catalog related to coins, then go and do it somewhere, but not in Numista.
It is where we disagree: both can be done together. When we research informations about issuers, currencies' succession, ruling authorities etc we are doing historical typology work already. Which are facts too. Just not facts written on the coin, but still numismatics.
Yes, I have noticed you're a history buff, I'm a coin collector, and the catalog should be prioritized to take care of numismatists, hence the name Numista, I should think. If I want to know the bloodlines of any royal families, I'll search that somewhere. If I want to know the history of Zaire, I'll go somewhere else to find that. If I want to find all the coins from Zaire, I'll go to Numista.
Numista was a coin catalog first and foremost. Now I start to doubt, if the priority is still on the coins. If somebody wants to write a historical catalog related to coins, then go and do it somewhere, but not in Numista.
It is where we disagree: both can be done together. When we research informations about issuers, currencies' succession, ruling authorities etc we are doing historical typology work already. Which are facts too. Just not facts written on the coin, but still numismatics.
No, the concept of succession is an interpretation of the facts, not a fact in itself. Some will have only one possible interpretation (e.g., DRC → Zaïre → DRC), others several (e.g., USSR → ?). Facts come first in a catalogue. If we can present them in a way which makes the obvious interpretations clear, all the better, but the facts must take precedent
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Numista means numismatics to me. Numismatically I believe issuers of coins and banknotes (and stamps) should be separated by the inscriptions of the time, not grouped together by their historic lineage. Congo Free State became Belgian Congo became Congo became Zaire and then Congo again. Each is separate numismatically and should be separated in a logical catalogue. The fact is there was no Zaire when there was a Congo Free State or a Belgian Congo. When a country changes it's name it is a different numismatic entity regardless if it retains the same geographical territory.
Congo Free State became Belgian Congo became Congo became Zaire and then Congo again. Each is separate numismatically and should be separated in a logical catalogue. The fact is there was no Zaire when there was a Congo Free State or a Belgian Congo. When a country changes it's name it is a different numismatic entity regardless if it retains the same geographical territory.
But all are periods of the same country: Congo (from my point of view).
There are only a few cases of full rename (at least in countries/periods of my collection). Another case: In 1935 Persia was renamed to Iran, but is the same country:
And if someone had changed the name of Spain in any period, would it be another country?
The term used is issuer, not country. And yes, if the name of Spain had changed, it would be a separate issuer. I hope that's clear? Other examples of a “full rename” include Ceylon → Sri Lanka, Siam → Thailand and Macedonia → North Macedonia. The name matters because that's how a coin or note is identified. To have a catalogue which ignores this is inaccurate and less accessible than it should be.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
North Macedonia, a country in southeastern Europe, known until 2019 as the Republic of Macedonia. The coins had the country name “Republic of Macedonia”, now the country is called “Republic of North Macedonia”
This is how the 2020 coin is presented in Numista N#302096
Numista stipulates, that it was called that since 1993?
When searching “Macedonia” you don't find the “The republic of Macedonia” only “North Macedonia”
My background is a librarian. The code of rules for cataloguing jurisdictional names is followed by the Library of Congress of the US and the national libraries of UK, Canada and Australia among others. The practice is to use the name at the time of writing when the jurisdiction can be considered an author. That would seem to be similar to jurisdictions being considered issuers of coins and banknotes. If a jurisdiction is considered as a subject, then libraries use the latest name for any time period. So if Numista were to be considering the coins and banknotes as subject matter, then the use of current names would make sense. But for me, Numista considers coins and banknotes to be more like publications of their jurisdictions and names at the time of issue should be used.
My background is a librarian. The code of rules for cataloguing jurisdictional names is followed by the Library of Congress of the US and the national libraries of UK, Canada and Australia among others. The practice is to use the name at the time of writing when the jurisdiction can be considered an author. That would seem to be similar to jurisdictions being considered issuers of coins and banknotes. If a jurisdiction is considered as a subject, then libraries use the latest name for any time period. So if Numista were to be considering the coins and banknotes as subject matter, then the use of current names would make sense. But for me, Numista considers coins and banknotes to be more like publications of their jurisdictions and names at the time of issue should be used.
Will
An excellent example of how a proper catalogue works. Thank you.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
