Issuer guidelines not respected

Hello,

The current guidelines (2.2. Issuers) indicate that an issuer is any:

(…)

• autonomous mint that regulates currency (for example, the Imperial mint of Basel)

However, the Imperial mint of Basel has now been dissolved into the Holy Roman Empire.

First, I don't understand why such changes are made against the guidelines. Shouldn't the guidelines be respected? They were discussed extensively, and many referees approved and contributed to them. If there's something wrong with them, shouldn't they be clarified and communicated first if necessary? I have no idea what's going on.

In the absence of a guideline, this change is very confusing. Recently, the Roman provinces were split into different issuers corresponding to autonomous mints (as per the guidelines). Should we expect this entire section to be dissolved again? following the example of the HRE?

So why this inconsistency (with the guidelines and between issuers)?

Second, I also don't see this merger as a good change. This suggests somehow that the Imperial Mint of Basel was just like a modern mint, getting commissions from the central authority and simply executing the job, which is completely not the case. 

My suggestion is to actually follow the current guidelines for consistency and clarity. Otherwise, please change them to transparently reflect your policy, so users can figure out what the logic is.

Thank you

Thanks for the discussion. 

My point of view is that issuer is HRE (with its attached ruling authorities), and mint is Basel. But if it helps for accuracy, we could think to add “imperial mint of Basel” as an issuing entity based on their specific role at this time, like we do for Merovingian or Anglo-Saxon moneyers. What do you think?

I think what I think is irrelevant. The guidelines should be followed. It's not a matter of what my opinion is. None of the possible implementations is perfect, and there will always be specific cases where an alternative would work better. This is a collaborative effort and it can only work if the collaboration framework is clear and stable, and its implementation is transparent. If changes are made high-level based on someone's point of view, explicitly against an agreed set of guidelines, then it all falls apart. 

But I can also explain why this change is problematic. The imperial goldguldens of Basel are integral to the history and numismatics of Basel and of Switzerland. They are listed accordingly in every published coin catalogue of Switzerland. World coin catalogues also list them under Switzerland / Basel (see for example Friedberg). Numista used to reflect this, which is what I think Numista should do: follow published literature for credibility. The imperial mint of Basel was properly listed under Switzerland and it was possible to see all coins together, filter, and compare them. 

It was also discussed that coins of the imperial mints should be connected with a filter tag for the Holy Roman Empire (like it's currently possible for continents and the former colonial empires, and there was a list of different overlapping tags proposed, for example, the Hanseatic League). I remember adding tags in the database for some of the imperial mints, and Xavier said he will add the filter to the dropdown list for a test. I don't know why this was never implemented, but I still think this was a good approach, giving the option to browse the coins of Switzerland properly, as well as linking all the Holy Roman Empire issuers through a filter. This is now not possible anymore. 

I only use the example of Basel because it's the one used in the guidelines, but of course there are many mints in Switzerland.

I would still like to hear what the plan is for the other autonomous mints, for example, the Roman provincial mints, the Ottoman mints, Spanish colonial mints, etc. Are you planning to merge everything? Or keep things inconsistent?

These back-and-forth swings based on a new opinion are simply unproductive, and their implications are very serious throughout the catalogue, creating inconsistencies everywhere. It should be clear by now that no single approach will solve every issuer in history. Why not focus on strengthening what we have and build in one direction consistently, instead of restructuring everything from scratch? There are still thousands of issuers to be created and millions of items to be added. 

To me as well the HRE in the majority of cases is more of a superimposed issuer if that makes sense.

would be simillar to move all Euro coins combines in one to European Union which we also do not do

having them under seperate issuer who where granted by the HRE the right of freedom to mint their own coinage but linking them also in HRE I think that would be the way forward.

Interesting, thanks! But if I may, the reason I suggested to merge is that those about 15-20 issuers were a bit of a mess overall, mixing episcopal, royal, ducal (from different duchies often), imperial coinages all together, most of the time without any ruling authority nor explanation, which made it often difficult to sort out.

I agree everything is possible, it just appeared to me quite obvious to reshuffle the few coins we had in them within all the relevant issuers (which were all already existing in Numista btw, I didnt create anything, except if I remember well the Lower Lorrain Duchy). It even allowed me to delete some duplicates :-)

My point being, whatever the system we need good stewarting to maintain it

stratocaster 

I would still like to hear what the plan is for the other autonomous mints, for example, the Roman provincial mints, the Ottoman mints, Spanish colonial mints, etc. Are you planning to merge everything? Or keep things inconsistent?

No plan about that at all! My point was to make HRE consistent with its neighbors in time and space and to fix inconsistencies mentionned above, not to change what is working elsewhere)

These back-and-forth swings based on a new opinion are simply unproductive, and their implications are very serious throughout the catalogue, creating inconsistencies everywhere. It should be clear by now that no single approach will solve every issuer in history. Why not focus on strengthening what we have and build in one direction consistently, instead of restructuring everything from scratch? There are still thousands of issuers to be created and millions of items to be added. 

Totally agreed !

Also please consider that I also take part in enriching the DB with new items and issuers ;-) 

HRE mints took me only a few hours of work. I did not start from scratch anything, really :-)

stratocaster

They are listed accordingly in every published coin catalogue of Switzerland. World coin catalogues also list them under Switzerland / Basel (see for example Friedberg). Numista used to reflect this, which is what I think Numista should do: follow published literature for credibility.

If literature was really an argument Zaire and Gold Coast would remain in the country list as majors publication list them as country…

Indomini16

stratocaster

They are listed accordingly in every published coin catalogue of Switzerland. World coin catalogues also list them under Switzerland / Basel (see for example Friedberg). Numista used to reflect this, which is what I think Numista should do: follow published literature for credibility.

If literature was really an argument Zaire and Gold Coast would remain in the country list as majors publication list then as country…

For me, this would have also worked better. I've explained my opinion when this was discussed. However, the decision was against this, and the case of Zaire is clear. It follows the published guidelines.

However, Zaire and the others are different because at least they still exist in Numista, just as ruling authority groups rather than issuers. They are searchable in the country list. In the case of the imperial mint of Basel, it disappeared completely!

And while I would have preferred a different system for Zaire too, I don't think it's a good idea at all to switch again back to another model now. No system will be perfect. The current system has some flaws, but it can be improved with some easy changes and it could work just fine.

stratocasterIn the case of the imperial mint of Basel, it disappeared completely!

I disagree. We added the mint (no entries in the previous multiple imperial, ducal, royal mints were using the mint field, they are now), and of course we can create a dedicated mint if needed to separate Basel for instance during different times.

Also I suggested to use Issuing entity field in addition when relevant, which seems to be way more apropriate than issuer field to underline the specific role of this entity you described.

Compendium

stratocasterIn the case of the imperial mint of Basel, it disappeared completely!

I disagree. We added the mint (no entries in the previous multiple imperial, ducal, royal mints were using the mint field, they are now), and of course we can create a dedicated mint if needed to separate Basel for instance during different times.

I was referring to the issuer list. The previous sentence in my post is “They are searchable in the country list.” And yes, the Imperial mint of Basel can no longer be found:

Compendium

Also I suggested to use Issuing entity field in addition when relevant, which seems to be way more apropriate than issuer field to underline the specific role of this entity you described.

“Issuer” and “issuing entity” mean exactly the same thing in English. Entity can mean anything. So you might as well list Holy Roman Empire as the entity and keep the imperial mint as the issuer. Either way, neither option conveys the complexity of the dynamic relations between the imperial mints and the empire. Even considering the specific use of these fields in Numista, in the case of Basel, for the first couple of years when it was under the authority of an appointed official, it was probably more akin to an issuing entity indeed. Subsequently, it was taken over by a lord, so it should be an issuer, like every other bishopric or fief in the empire. I don't see how one approach is better than the other. Additionally, your proposal also doesn't address the fact that the imperial mint of Basel should be organised together with the other mints in Basel and the Swiss states.  

Anyway, I really don't see how your proposal is a solution to my original suggestion. The guidelines are not followed. And now, there is a significant inconsistency with the other autonomous mints in the catalogue (Roman, Ottoman, etc), which you don't plan to merge. 

Hmmm. Still not totally convinced as rulers appearing on coins are ruling authorities of HRE, not of Basel only. Was it a free imperial city like we have one for Besancon?

Anyway, of course we can create if needed any new issuer we consider relevant. I must confess Basel was just one of many issuers we reshuffled (Schongau, Todtau, Nurnberg etc etc etc) which were globally a mess, so maybe it should have been an exception.

But Switzerland referee validated every request without any remark so maybe you should talk with him first and create a new thread with the decision? I'll be happy to move coins myself following it :-)

As for the guidelines, i dont see any issue except changing the example ofc if we dont change its status again. Choices may differ from an issuer to an another. For instance Anglo Saxon and Merovingian moneyers were autonomous, but we didnt create an issuer per moneyer

What is the issue with the coins from Schöngau, Todtnau and Nürnberg?

Schöngau, Todtnau as far as I know are not even Holy Roman Empire mints but should be seen entirely seperate.

Nürnberg have minted coins for the Free city but also some for the imperial mint. These of the imperial mint are designwise however for most quite seperate from all other HRE coins.

Compendium

Hmmm. Still not totally convinced as rulers appearing on coins are ruling authorities of HRE, not of Basel only. Was it a free imperial city like we have one for Besancon?

Shouldn't you know the answer before making these changes? Besançon also shows the portraits of the Holy Roman emperors, and you left it as an independent issuer.

Compendium

I must confess Basel was just one of many issuers we reshuffled (Schongau, Todtau, Nurnberg etc etc etc) which were globally a mess, so maybe it should have been an exception.

The German states and Swiss cantons were not a mess.  Nothing is perfect on Numista, but I don't think an admin should make such a comment about the hard work of many years of many contributors.

Compendium

But Switzerland referee validated every request without any remark so maybe you should talk with him first and create a new thread with the decision? I'll be happy to move coins myself following it :-)

There is a forum thread where the structure of Switzerland was discussed and agreed:

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic89948.html#p759647

Following which forum thread discussing the dissolution of the Imperial Mint of Basel did you move the coins in the first place?

Compendium

As for the guidelines, i dont see any issue except changing the example ofc if we dont change its status again. Choices may differ from an issuer to an another. For instance Anglo Saxon and Merovingian moneyers were autonomous, but we didnt create an issuer per moneyer

The guidelines clearly say that any autonomous mint should be an issuer. Not autonomous moneyers. And yes, autonomous mints (Merovingian, Holy Roman, Roman Provincial, Carolingian, etc.) should be separate issuers, as they were already in Switzerland.

 General members will not be able to read that topic in the link. 

With motion to create HRE  we basically moved away from that guideline point about autonomous mint. With that in mind, I would even say it is a guideline relict that needs to be corrected. This was added into guidelines anyway just to describe status quo that was before.

How much autonomy those mints had? They were not rulers of some territorry, as far as I know. I would love to see some literature on that.

Jarcek

I would love to see some literature on that.

With all my due respect, literatures are not taken into account to make changes in Numista. Krause is describing Zaire as a country, we don't, just as an example.

Jarcek

How much autonomy those mints had? They were not rulers of some territorry, as far as I know. I would love to see some literature on that.

Shouldn't you have checked the literature before making such a change? And what is stopping you from seeing some literature? It's not exactly an obscure topic… there are dozens of books on this topic in my local library. And I've explained in my previous post that for most of its history, the imperial mint of Basel had as much autonomy as the Bishopric of Basel and other imperial fiefs listed independently in Numista. Same for other autonomous mints. Why is territory even in question? see Order of Malta.

Jarcek

With motion to create HRE  we basically moved away from that guideline point about autonomous mint. With that in mind, I would even say it is a guideline relict that needs to be corrected. This was added into guidelines anyway just to describe status quo that was before.

What was wrong with how the issuers were listed before? And what was wrong with this particular guideline? How can this guideline be a "relict" when it was the basis for splitting the autonomous Roman provincial mints? This is a very inconsistent approach.

Krause is catalogue, I meant actual historical literature. I am just interested in a topic.

You have a good local library if it provides dozens of books on history of early Holy Roman Empire coinage. Slight problem is that this is not my local library, so it would not be that easy. Oh and we checked literature, it was not hard to see that we were missing whole Holy Roman Empire. 

Order of Malta had territorry. 

To answer the very original question - yes Roman provinces were split, but they were split from Roman main catalogue even before. And I do not believe they will be merged. 

If we want to combine HRE coins We should note that there is note a single numismatic catalogue combining them and there is a reason for that.

still if we do combine I think that it is urgently needed to have them duplicated in our catalogue with one entry under their individual mints.

Besançon is one of the Free cities of the Holy Roman Empire who had been given rights to mint their own coins.

True question: why to “mints”?

We already have a Basel issuer, with “free city” as ruling authority (even though basel get fully rid of archbishops power only in 16th century), so if some issues must be considered as local coinage we should use this one, right? An autonomous mint minting HRE coins is not more than an administrative power imo, and we can use “issuing entity” field if needed.

Issuer is the form of temporal power on a territory. I guess no one is merchant, citizen, subject or else of a mint

Why where issuers such as Schöngau and Todtnau resolved and placed within HRE?

Schöngau was a mint under the Duchy of Bavaria but a seperate entity within the Holy Roman Empire https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzogtum_Bayern_(HRR)

Coins of Todtnau where minted under the Archduchy of Austria https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzherzogtum_%C3%96sterreich

A time where it was a Fief of the Holy Roman Empire

apuking

Why where issuers such as Schöngau and Todtnau resolved and placed within HRE?

They were not necessarily put in HRE; coins attached to the few “issuer mints” I reshuffled were from different existing issuers: duchies, bishoprics, HRE, … Strato is right I shouldnt have used “mess”, but it was a mix really. I think some contributors were lost at the creation time which explain these cases.

Coins of Todtnau where minted under the Archduchy of Austria https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzherzogtum_%C3%96sterreich

A time where it was a Fief of the Holy Roman Empire

The only coin which was attached to this mint was this one: N#135966

(Several “issuer mints” had only 1 or 2 entries as a matter of fact)

apuking

Schöngau was a mint under the Duchy of Bavaria but a seperate entity within the Holy Roman Empire https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzogtum_Bayern_(HRR)

There were 8 coins attached to it: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/mint.php?id=2923

Half have been attached to duchy of Swabia, other half to Duchy of Upper Bavaria.

Happy to fix any mistake I maybe made :-)

Compendium

apuking

Schöngau was a mint under the Duchy of Bavaria but a seperate entity within the Holy Roman Empire https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzogtum_Bayern_(HRR)

There were 8 coins attached to it: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/mint.php?id=2923

Half have been attached to duchy of Swabia, other half to Duchy of Upper Bavaria.

Happy to fix any mistake I maybe made :-)

That is fine then, thank you

I believe the real value of Numista originates from it being based on a collective effort—all decisions related to catalogue changes used to be discussed in a public forum. 

Now things are different. The catalogue guidelines initially discussed extensively with all referees, have been quietly changed to omit the inconsistency I mentioned in this thread without any notice and despite clear opposition to this change. The Swiss states structure, similarly discussed openly, was also changed privately without any notice.

Why do Numista admins now ignore this valuable resource, the knowledge of the Numista community and the legitimacy this gives to your catalogue changes? Don't you believe users can add value anymore?

stratocaster

I believe the real value of Numista originates from it being based on a collective effort—all decisions related to catalogue changes used to be discussed in a public forum. 

 

Now things are different. The catalogue guidelines initially discussed extensively with all referees, have been quietly changed to omit the inconsistency I mentioned in this thread without any notice and despite clear opposition to this change. The Swiss states structure, similarly discussed openly, was also changed privately without any notice.

 

Why do Numista admins now ignore this valuable resource, the knowledge of the Numista community and the legitimacy this gives to your catalogue changes? Don't you believe users can add value anymore?

Be serious please. Whatever your frustrations, I wont let you again say lies. Nothing changed “quietly”. This very thread is one example amongst dozens of others where debates have sometimes been intense, on any topic regarding guidelines and catalogue structure.

Accusing not only Admins' but everyone's hard work just because you're personnally unhappy is dishonest. finishing your monologue by such a rhetorical sophism is just low.