Issuer name consistency [Risolto]

Hello,

There is an inconsistency in the way periods appear in newly added issuer names. I refer to capitalisation and the use of either a hyphen (-), comma (,) or parentheses (). 

Additionally, the use of the word “feudal” is questionable, especially when covering coins of the late 18th century (example) like in Feudal Belgium. I think in this case, either Southern Netherlands states (consistent with Italy, Germany, Spain, etc.), Belgium (pre-independence) or even Belgian states are more appropriate.

Even more problematic is Feudal Netherlands. The Netherlands were never really “feudal” in the sense that France was, but rather a system of merchant states and free cities. Land ownership (Heerlijkheid) was rather an early capitalist system rather than a nobility tenure based on vassalage and feudal contracts, especially after the 16th century. So I propose Netherlands (pre-federal), Netherlands (pre-revolt) or something similar.

Consequently, I suggest the following changes:

• Belgium - feudal → Belgium (feudal) / Belgium (pre-independence) / Southern Netherlands states
• France - Feudal → France (feudal)
  • Savoy (Feudal France) → Savoy (France)*
  • Vienne (France Feudal), Archbishopric of → Vienne (France), Archbishopric of*
  • Navarre of Feudal France, Kingdom of → Navarre (France), Kingdom of*
• France (Metropolitan) → France, Metropolitan**
• France (Overseas) → France, Overseas**
• India - Princely states → Indian princely states
• India - Danish → India, Danish**
• India - Dutch → India, Dutch**
• India - French → India, French**
• India - Portuguese → India, Portuguese**
• India - Islamic → Indian sultanates
• Netherlands - Feudal → Netherlands (pre-revolt)
• Janapadas (Pre-Mauryan) → Janapadas (pre-Mauryan) 
• United States - Pre-Federal → United States (pre-federal)
• Germany - 1871-1948 → Germany (1871–⁠1948)

This will make the issuer names consistent with these ones:

• India, British**
• Japanese feudal domains
• Montenegro (medieval)
• Nepal (medieval)
• Serbia (medieval)
  • Serbia (medieval)
• Arabia (ancient)
• Central and Eastern Europe (ancient)
• Central Asia (ancient)
• Choresmia (ancient)
• Sogdiana (ancient)
• China (ancient)
  • China (ancient)
• Egypt (ancient)
• Greece (ancient)
• Cyprus (ancient)
• Crete (ancient)
• Iberia (ancient)
• India (ancient)
• Italy (ancient)
• Roman Republic (ancient)
• South Africa (pre-Union)

The guidelines were discussed some years ago and it was decided that parentheses are the proper use for periods. In short: parentheses are used to provide an explanation; hyphens (not to be confused with an Em-dash) are used to link two words to form a compound term. Also, explanations in parentheses should not be capitalised.

* I think France is enough, no need for feudal France. We already have many examples, such as Naxos (Sicily), not Naxos (ancient Sicily).

**Another guideline that was so far followed was that for sorting purposes we use a comma (,):

e.g.: Danish Estonia → Estonia, Danish

Additionally, please fix the following typos in the comma spacing:

• Fezensac ,County of
• Neustadt an der Haardt , City of
• Durlach , City of
• Neckargemünd , City of
• Sankt Blasien , City of
• Todtnau , City of
• Amorbach , City of
• Landau an der Isar , City of

Thank you

These all seem sensible. My only thought is using terms that refer to specific events. If you know what Federal or Revolt refer to in the USA or Netherlands, those terms are fine but, if you don't, they won't mean much. Might it be better to use dates in cases like those?

Thank you so much!! I agree commas should be used only when we need them to respect alphabetic order despite adjectives being sometimes before the issuer name, and parenthesis if not.

I just kept dashes in french language for now, for specific cases where we go from adjectives to nouns (Allemagne - Etats > des Etats allemands)

I applied everything (made only 1-2 modifications), let me know if it works for you and if you have more ideas ! :-)

I am late to the discussion, but I agree with dropping the term Feudal for the early states in Belgium and Netherlands.  I know there have been negative comments on the French forum applying this term to 18th century Liege.

Use of “States” seems most consistent with other places (Germany, Italy, and recent change in Poland to cover the situation between 1772 - 1917 as well as the feudal period).

Belgian States (or Southern Low Countries States) and Netherlandish States (or Northern Low Countries States) would be internally consistent it seems.

tdziemia

I am late to the discussion, but I agree with dropping the term Feudal for the early states in Belgium and Netherlands.  I know there have been negative comments on the French forum applying this term to 18th century Liege.

 

Use of “States” seems most consistent with other places (Germany, Italy, and recent change in Poland to cover the situation between 1772 - 1917 as well as the feudal period).

 

Belgian States (or Southern Low Countries States) and Netherlandish States (or Northern Low Countries States) would be internally consistent it seems.

Belgian states is also the on I picked from Strato's suggestion, so I'm very happy we agree! ^^
For Netherlands I put “pre-federal” to match the US example, but happy to change for “Netherlands States” if you prefer Ted

Pre-federal should be OK for Netherlands.  

The parallels between Dutch Republic and United States seems reasonable for these purposes. 

tdziemia

Pre-federal should be OK for Netherlands.  

 

The parallels between Dutch Republic and United States seems reasonable for these purposes. 

Are we sure “federal” is a term commonly understood to refer to the United Provinces?

Probably not.  But by the time we are done re-structuring Netherlands, the only three sub-sections will be 

- Dutch Republic

- Netherlands

- Netherlands (pre-federal or whatever we plan to call it),

… so I think it will be obvious.

“Pre-revolt" or “Pre-Republic” would probably be understood better by collectors in the Low Countries, (even though the term Confederation is used many Dutch Republic coins).  Netherlands States would be even more accurate, since this section includes issues after 1600 (post-revolt) from the Lordships which were not part of the Dutch Republic.  

Of course U.S. collectors don't use the term “Pre-federal” either, but we chose it for the catalog.  

If we want to be consistent with Germany, Italy and Poland (and consistent between these two parts of the Low Countries) we can just say States in both places.   It just depends on if we want all the country sub-sections to look similar where it makes sense, or do the naming of sub-sections using terms that are most familiar in each place.   

tdziemia

Netherlands States would be even more accurate, since this section includes issues after 1600 (post-revolt) from the Lordships which were not part of the Dutch Republic.  

Makes sense, I applied :-)

You are restructuring Numista into an unheard complexity, where nobody can follow you anymore.

Sjoelund

You are restructuring Numista into an unheard complexity, where nobody can follow you anymore.

Thanks for feedback

Our goal is to make Numista working for every need; sometimes challenging as we cover thousands of years and thousands of issuers :-)

The Indian Princely States section should be retitled - ‘Indian Princely States - under British Suzerainty’.

Aidan.