Opportunity to Correct Issuer Guidelines [Risolto]

Xavier has just released updated guidelines and has asked for feedback. However, this was on the referees' forum, so I'm posting the link here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/instructions.php?draft=1
as I know there are many significant contributors who are not referees.

Of particular significance (given recent complaints) are the guidelines for issuers, which have not been changed in the new version.

2.2. Issuers
An issuer is any:
organised community (for example, Australia, Commune of Nice, Abbey of Saint Gall, Rauraci tribe),
association of such communities (for example, Eurozone, West African States, joint notgeld issuers), or
autonomous mint that regulates currency (for example, the Imperial mint of Basel)
with a claimed right to issue currency.
An issuer may have different currencies, governments and names throughout its history. For example, "Ceylon" and "Sri Lanka" are considered as a single issuer in the Numista catalogue.
Only when the territory of an issuer suffers a sudden, significant, and long-term change, resulting in a discontinuity of its currency, then the change result in a different issuer. For example the Soviet Union and modern-day Russia are listed as different issuers.

Can I suggest the following replacement for the last two paragraphs?

An issuer may have different currencies and governments throughout its history. However, when there is a clear change in name, such as from "Ceylon" to "Sri Lanka", and not just a change in title (e.g., "Kingdom of Italy" to "Republic of Italy"), separate sections grouped under the current or last-used name should be employed so as to ensure accuracy of the catalogue and clarity for all users.

I agree very strongly with your proposal.

So far the reaction to this is split. Would any of those who disagree with the proposal care to explain why?

Coin

A rigid piece of material that has a determined value (denomination) within a currency system.

The denomination may be explicit or implied by de facto use. Coins may not necessarily be intended to circulate (for example, some commemoratives, trial strikes, presentation pieces, proofs, etc).

 

So a Leprosy coin from Venzuela is a coin and not an exonumia (more so than an uncirculating “coin”)😁

ceh2019An issuer may have different currencies and governments throughout its history. However, when there is a clear change in name, such as from "Ceylon" to "Sri Lanka", and not just a change in title (e.g., "Kingdom of Italy" to "Republic of Italy"), separate sections grouped under the current or last-used name should be employed so as to ensure accuracy of the catalogue and clarity for all users.

In the German States even a change in title can apparently be enough for a different issuer: the County of Schaumburg-Lippe became the Principality of Schaumburg-Lippe after 1806, but as far as I can tell it still held exactly the same territory. (There's a bunch of other similar cases.)

 

I agree with the proposal otherwise, however.

 

[EDIT: minor clarifying fix]

January First-of-May

ceh2019An issuer may have different currencies and governments throughout its history. However, when there is a clear change in name, such as from "Ceylon" to "Sri Lanka", and not just a change in title (e.g., "Kingdom of Italy" to "Republic of Italy"), separate sections grouped under the current or last-used name should be employed so as to ensure accuracy of the catalogue and clarity for all users.

In the German States even a change in title can apparently be enough for a different issuer: the County of Schaumburg-Lippe became the Principality of Schaumburg-Lippe after 1806, but as far as I can tell it still held exactly the same territory. (There's a bunch of other similar cases.)

 

I agree with the proposal otherwise, however.

 

[EDIT: minor clarifying fix]

I would put these as a single issuer. You're right, there are many similar cases. Occassionaly the same name is applied to different German territories but not often.