United Kingdom > British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies > United Kingdom
That's a circle or an infinite loop, potentially, and I would question the notion that the United Kingdom itself belongs under British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies…
Why not just use the continents and let's get rid of the countries (before, after and now), not to forget the issuers.
The only problem of course is that the continents and the issuers are not written on the coins, so we would have to do with the country name from the days, where the country existed (like in the SCWC). It has gotten unreasonably complicated.
United Kingdom > British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies > United Kingdom
Perhaps confusing loops like this ought to be addressed at least.
It looks somewhat unprofessional. No item should be a descendant item of itself via intermediary steps – in this case ‘United Kingdom’ becomes a grandchild of itself via its child ‘British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies’.
Breadcrumbs like this should follow an ordered rooted tree structure.
United Kingdom > British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies > United Kingdom
Perhaps confusing loops like this ought to be addressed at least.
It looks somewhat unprofessional. No item should be a descendant item of itself via intermediary steps – in this case ‘United Kingdom’ becomes a grandchild of itself via its child ‘British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies’.
Breadcrumbs like this should follow an ordered rooted tree structure.
100% of issuers having sub issuers are in this situation (see France for example). It is because we name the section with the country name, and put in the section the country itself.
This is all a mess. Another example: “Papal States” is a Sub-issuer of “Vatican City” and has coins itself (from Rome). But “Papal States” has again Sub-Issuers with coins themselves (everything but Rome). So we can see papal coins from Bologna, Ferrara, etc. under their own issuers, but it's impossible for papal coins from Rome. There you see EVERY papal coin. Is that intended?
To answer the original question, no we did not decide on this. At no point have the membership been consulted on all the changes to issuers. It took weeks just to get rid of the absurd and wholly inaccurate “British Crown”. Now we have something that is ridiculously cumbersome and at no stage has any of this even been justified, let alone put out for consultation.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
United Kingdom > British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies > United Kingdom
Perhaps confusing loops like this ought to be addressed at least.
It looks somewhat unprofessional. No item should be a descendant item of itself via intermediary steps – in this case ‘United Kingdom’ becomes a grandchild of itself via its child ‘British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies’.
Breadcrumbs like this should follow an ordered rooted tree structure.
100% of issuers having sub issuers are in this situation (see France for example). It is because we name the section with the country name, and put in the section the country itself.
I understand your structural explanation. However, the naming system as listed here for ‘United Kingdom’ is not correct for the areas it covers.
Placing ‘British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies’ as a daughter of ‘United Kingdom’ implies that they are part of the ‘United Kingdom’ which is factually incorrect.
Some innovation regarding the top titles and the daughter titles could be applied to eliminate this loop issue.
May I suggest that you consider changing the top title to ‘Britain and its Dependencies’
For ‘United States’ the top title could be changed to ‘United States of America’.
In cases where there are Republics, the term ‘Republic of’ could be added to lower level instance of the name.
The top title could be ‘France and its overseas Territories’.
France is a special case, in that, correct me if I am wrong, all of the French overseas possessions are parts of France.
Note: The only banknotes currently under United Kingdom are Treasury notes, which is correct (and the British military Authority notes, which is not correct).
Banknotes issued by the Bank of England should also be under United Kingdom, not England, as they are printed for circulation throughout the entire United Kingdom, along with coinage. Bank of England notes make up almost the entirety of the currency notes circulating in England and Wales, and a large proportion of the notes circulating in Scotland and northern Ireland.
Some innovation regarding the top titles and the daughter titles could be applied to eliminate this loop issue.
May I suggest that you consider changing the top title to ‘Britain and its Dependencies’
For ‘United States’ the top title could be changed to ‘United States of America’.
In cases where there are Republics, the term ‘Republic of’ could be added to lower level instance of the name.
The top title could be ‘France and its overseas Territories’.
France is a special case, in that, correct me if I am wrong, all of the French overseas possessions are parts of France.
Note: The only banknotes currently under United Kingdom are Treasury notes, which is correct (and the British military Authority notes, which is not correct).
Banknotes issued by the Bank of England should also be under United Kingdom, not England, as they are printed for circulation throughout the entire United Kingdom, along with coinage. Bank of England notes make up almost the entirety of the currency notes circulating in England and Wales, and a large proportion of the notes circulating in Scotland and northern Ireland.
Let's keep the name of the country as the UK and move the dependencies and territories into completely separate sections. Then a lot of the needless headings will disappear.
Whilst it is true that some BoE notes circulate in NI and Scotland, they are not designated as legal tender there whilst they are in England and Wales. That may not create much of a practical dfference but it does indicate the intended area of circulation. Placing them in England is more accurate, given the name of the bank and when one considers the early notes which largely circulated in and around London. There isn't a perfect solution, given the unique and complex nature of UK paper money, but what we have right now is clear and accurate.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
As for the rest of the catalogue, we use current borders to sort collectibles.
Why? I know this has been practice for some time but I have still to see any justification for this editorial policy. As demonstrated above, it's highly confusing and inaccurate. It's certainly not something we decided on.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
As for the rest of the catalogue, we use current borders to sort collectibles.
Why? I know this has been practice for some time but I have still to see any justification for this editorial policy. As demonstrated above, it's highly confusing and inaccurate. It's certainly not something we decided on.
We made a change in the list of issuer, which removes this issue:
Guernesey, Jersey and Isle of Man have been moved out of the UK section. This reflects the fact they don't belong to the country United Kingdom, even if they have tight links with the United Kingdom. It also aligns with the approach of ISO 3166-2, which changed the codes GB-GSY, GB-JSY and GB-IOM to GG, JE and IM in 2006. Because of their close cultural link and the fact they are not independent countries, we made the choice to keep their common section “British Crown dependencies”, and just move it one level above.
The section “United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies” has been renamed to just “United Kingdom”, as the first change removed the naming issue.
Danish West Indies is a former polity, which territory is entirely within the current borders of the United States. That's consistent with the policy of grouping according to modern borders.
We do the same for Spanish Puerto Rico, for the Republic of Texas, the Kingdom of Hawaii, etc.
I tend to agree with Ole. Should Roman Empire coins be split according to mints to Italy, France, Serbia, UK…??? Likewise, all empires that were dissolved into many countries.
If a country/colony existed per se and minted it's own currency - leave it as it was, no matter the current geo politics!
I tend to agree with Ole. Should Roman Empire coins be split according to mints to Italy, France, Serbia, UK…??? Likewise, all empires that were dissolved into many countries.
If a country/colony existed per se and minted it's own currency - leave it as it was, no matter the current geo politics!
I would it is the reason why there is a category grouping ancient and early medieval countries, so they would be not split based on contemporaneous countries
Default: Issuers are mainly sorted geographically (past polities which territory is mainly within the current borders of a modern country are grouped in a common section corresponding to that modern country; polities that extend over the territory of several modern countries are separate), but also sometimes culturally or politically (for example Central Asia, Crusader states, Papal States) and according to the period and their political status: modern country territories, modern states with limited recognition, ancient and early medieval polities, micronations, fantasy places. This is the current statu quo applied throughout Numista.
By country: Issuers are grouped according to the current borders of modern countries. Past issuers, which territory extended over the territory of several modern countries are repeated for each country.
Alphabetically: There are no groups. All issuers are listed sequentially in alphabetical order. Danish West Indies is listed between Đàng Trong and Danishmendid dynasty.
Argomento spostato in Numista website(Xavier, 8 Mag 2025, 14:11)
Applying such configurable list of issuers throughout the whole website is a significant effort. I want to understand first whether it's really useful.
I'm not sure how the sorting of issuers by country would work for the My collection page.
The sorting by country repeats issuers which territory extends over the current territory of several countries. For example, the Roman Empire is repeated 40+ times, in Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, etc. How would that appear on the My collection page?
Also, @Sjoelund, the sorting by country has Danish West Indies inside the group “United States” (because the territory of the Danish West Indies corresponds to the the territory of the US Virgin Islands, which is fully within the current borders of United States). And I understand that's something you actually wanted to avoid.
By country: Issuers are grouped according to the current borders of modern countries. Past issuers, which territory extended over the territory of several modern countries are repeated for each country.
Thank you for that! I'm going to use this sorting mode as default.
I noticed that there is a kind of layout issue that break the lines. I don't know if it happens only in cellphones. Also Creta is apart from Greece.
Default: Issuers are mainly sorted geographically (past polities which territory is mainly within the current borders of a modern country are grouped in a common section corresponding to that modern country; polities that extend over the territory of several modern countries are separate), but also sometimes culturally or politically (for example Central Asia, Crusader states, Papal States) and according to the period and their political status: modern country territories, modern states with limited recognition, ancient and early medieval polities, micronations, fantasy places. This is the current statu quo applied throughout Numista.
By country: Issuers are grouped according to the current borders of modern countries. Past issuers, which territory extended over the territory of several modern countries are repeated for each country.
Alphabetically: There are no groups. All issuers are listed sequentially in alphabetical order. Danish West Indies is listed between Đàng Trong and Danishmendid dynasty.
Thank you for finally giving us this option. Hopefully this will take some of the sting out of the debates about groupings. One query. Can the alphabetically-sorted list be arranged to appear in more than one column, perhaps with headers for each letter to aid browsing?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
It would be interesting to have for each type of currency, a geographical map indicating its area of use in its period of issue, in relation to the current borders of the actuals countries. … 🙁
It would be interesting to have for each type of currency, a geographical map indicating its area of use in its period of issue, in relation to the current borders of the actuals countries. … 🙁
Didn't we talk about this, like, 10 years ago, to have different dashboard maps for different eras and time periods?
Thank you for finally giving us this option. Hopefully this will take some of the sting out of the debates about groupings. One query. Can the alphabetically-sorted list be arranged to appear in more than one column, perhaps with headers for each letter to aid browsing?
I added the multiple columns and the headers for each letter to facilitate browsing when the list of issuers sorted alphabetically.
I added the multiple columns and the headers for each letter to facilitate browsing when the list of issuers sorted alphabetically.
Thanks again. There a few glitches in the listing. The letters B, C, R, U and V are split around the following issuers: Boii, Cotini, Rauraci, Uncertain Central European Celts and Vindelici. Hoefully that's an easy fix.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Why are there 19 more issuers in the default listing than in the new ones?
In the default listing, there are some shortcuts from one branch of the tree to another. I will make a fix, as they should not be counted.
ceh2019
Thanks again. There a few glitches in the listing. The letters B, C, R, U and V are split around the following issuers: Boii, Cotini, Rauraci, Uncertain Central European Celts and Vindelici. Hoefully that's an easy fix.
These glitches will be gone after the nightly refresh.
