Is there/ should there be a committee to determine which authorities qualify as countries for dashboard purposes?

A governing authority with legal authority to issue legal tender should have its own listing. If the legal authority changes shouldn't a new country entry be created? We have Germany and East Germany...shouldnt we have Prussia? Bavaria? Hamburg? We have every territorial entity of India as its own listing. So why not carry this logic foward to all world territorial issues? If a state or group has inherent legal authority to issue coinage they deserve there own listing. Maybe this is all a ploy by the 300 country mafia to keep their numbers low?

This is simply for ease of use of the catalogue.
this is also were people will search for their coin when they have a coin from lets say Hamburg.
else you can add 300+ countries or states with issuing authorities for the German States alone some of which are Monasteries wich had at their time less then 100 inhabitants.
the German states were also maybe more connected than you know, I suggest you to read about the Holy Roman Enpire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
+ if you do it with the German States you should do it to the whole xatalogue, I don't see the ease of use with over 1000 state/countries/official minting authorities when this can be ordered in a more simple way.

We've had numerous arguments about this topic...nothing has come of it.

Cita: "Oklahoman" We have every territorial entity of India as its own listing.

​Not all. Only each colonial ruler. Look well at India (ancient), India - British, India - Mughal Empire... They're like German states. The only exception is they have a more logical split, as not the same periods and rulers (including other India rulers as well). I already told you we need to split German states to separate Holy Roman Empire from Confederations and the last Empire (1871-1918, not the stupid Nazi simili-empire).

I think we should get rid of umbrella categories. They are either coins or not. And. If they are not then they should be in that disappointing token section. Legitemate issuing entities ought to not be subsumed in umbrella categories. The kind scholars here have mentioned many reasons why things done here are.done...but for every reason given there are exceptions that are given for why it isnt applied worldwide. I love Portugal and Portuguese colonials. But with the exception of Portugal and India I have to somehow know to dig and find colonial listings buried within modern national listings. A coin is such by the legitimacy of the government and the law that authorized it. Not by a territory boundry of land. Let these nations have their own entry. Dont bury them into obscurity. If this means we have thousands of listings them so be it. If the goal is simplicity then we could have just a single listings for continent nations and a second listing for oceanic nations. My coins of a colonial country are still coins regardless of which government presently is in charge. Lets stop burying countries within countries. Let them see the light of day. No doubt it would provoke trade and numismatic interest.

If the monastaries of Germany with their hundred occupants were legal issuers then give them their own category. There are countries with similar populations that have their own category. This actually impacts the stats of the dashboard as well. Some people could have significantly higher countries in their count if the coinage was treated as such instead of being relegated to quasi local token status within umbrella categories... My nation count would be significantly higher if all my colonials were listed seperately as is India. My indian states and german states should have their own category. Heck...Newfoundland was given the honor of its own listing when all of its brothers and sister provinces are bundled up in a collective category...lots of german and indian entities have far more coin types and larger mintages than Newfoundland ever did. Just saying...I dont always think simpler is the simplest thing to do.

Well... As Newfoundland was a separate colony and later an autonomous Dominion in the same level as Canada... Not surprising to split this one.

It's either a coin or it isnt. If its accepted that it is a coin and not a medal or token then it dserves a listing in the country count. I agree that the german state and indian state umbrella categories should go. Bavaria and Kutch deserve the same status that Numista affords Sealand or the Hutt River Province. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick deserve to be their own category not because they have a size or legal status but because they had coins. Numista is about coins isnt it? Isnt the best way to list and track a coin by the authority who issued it?

The country and territory list should reflect countries and territories.

Could the country list stay with the same umbrella categories but the countries represented counter be adjusted to show that a member has that country represented in his dashboard?

Well, to address the original question... quite simply, yes.

We did actually make some considerable progress towards arriving at a solution just a few weeks ago using a method which in a moment of clarity and hubris I termed The Nightingale Method. I believe that it offers the best solution to the coin / country debate. It's quite a long read but very worthwhile. It's quite reassuring to me to find that Dear Leader has a sound grasp of the issues so it's quite possible that we have a solution to one of the numismatic world's longest running disputes.

To summarize-

• There is no point in defining a country unless you also define a coin and vice versa.
  
• It should be result driven, not exception driven.
  
• The problem being addressed is a cataloging issue, not a geographic or historical one.
  
• A set of principles are decided and exceptions are tackled by comparing with those and the existing populations.
  
• The process is tested before live running by applying it to specific examples and measuring the result against the pre defined objectives.
  
• Decisions are taken by a panel rather than the referee who may have a bias towards "his" countries.
  

To arrive at a compromise which more or less suits everybody and meets the needs of collectors would be a major feather in the Numista cap and would go a long way to cementing Numista's place as a premier cataloging tool. It would be nice to see K&M adjusting to the new model instead of being in the driving seat. Future numismatists would be gratified to find the issue settled already instead of each generation having the same discussion.

So we have an agreed framework, it just needs to be finalized, the actual process of how to submit a review request decided and a panel selected and given the tools to implement it.

Just read the whole Nightingale Method. It it flawless. Starting Budhist humming to force administration team to make this implemented.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

I disagree, Hutt River is a country, wether you like it or not.

It is a private property, runned by a crazy man calling himself a Prince. And moreover, they do not actually control their own territorry and it is not recognized by any nation - thus it is not a state (country). It merely thinks and proclaims that it is. I do not like it, and according to international law, it is not a state.

Personally I think a good method to determine a country is an entity which has de facto control over an area. So Transnistria and Abkhazia will be counted as countries even when they aren't.

I believe that we should split "country list" to two separate listings:

UN recognized or historical countries and Partially or NON-recognized countries.

Also these two categories should itself have some more divisions, but that would be entirely different discussion.

I disagree with you. Plenty of countries were never recognized de jure, but numismaticly they are countries.

That is why I am not trying to remove them - just a split (along some dividing line). If it was on me, I would list them in just two columns on the same page.

Cita: "Jarcek"​It is a private property, runned by a crazy man calling himself a Prince. And moreover, they do not actually control their own territorry and it is not recognized by any nation - thus it is not a state (country). It merely thinks and proclaims that it is. I do not like it, and according to international law, it is not a state.

​Your example is worse as this represents more a fraud made by a group of crooks who didn't want to follow the wheat quotas (and later tax issues) in Western Australia.

We consider countries and territories all together like separate countries. Some ones are due to a rebellion and/or a foreign military manipulation, like your examples of Abkhazia and Transnistria. Some others are only overseas territories or similar (we had a private talk with Jarcek for British overseas territories - like Gibraltar - or Crown Dependencies). And we should consider in the same way antique and medieval currencies.

This can be endless discussion, as everybody can have their own perception of a statehood. I think we should find some neutral way how to compromise.
1/ Changes are needed on a map in dashboard - that is sure
2/ pnightingale have some general awesome ideas how to separate tokens from coins - I think this should became rule
3/ and regarding a country list - I am dreaming of customizable one - lets say keep everything as it is and each user could sort them how would he like - make two, three groups, according to UN, sort them by continents or kick out ancient, or else. I belive this solution would eradicate all problems and moreover - it would not damage 300 countries club - as they would all stay the same. Also no, referees would have to be even concerned if that what they are managing is a state or not - it would just not mattered.

Cita: "Oklahoman"​I think we should get rid of umbrella categories. They are either coins or not. And. If they are not then they should be in that disappointing token section. Legitemate issuing entities ought to not be subsumed in umbrella categories. The kind scholars here have mentioned many reasons why things done here are.done...but for every reason given there are exceptions that are given for why it isnt applied worldwide. I love Portugal and Portuguese colonials. But with the exception of Portugal and India I have to somehow know to dig and find colonial listings buried within modern national listings. A coin is such by the legitimacy of the government and the law that authorized it. Not by a territory boundry of land. Let these nations have their own entry. Dont bury them into obscurity. If this means we have thousands of listings them so be it. If the goal is simplicity then we could have just a single listings for continent nations and a second listing for oceanic nations. My coins of a colonial country are still coins regardless of which government presently is in charge. Lets stop burying countries within countries. Let them see the light of day. No doubt it would provoke trade and numismatic interest.

​I have made the same argument, but I never seem to get any response. People keep making other arguments and ignore this kind of argument for some reason.

Cita: "pnightingale"​Well, to address the original question... quite simply, yes.
​
​We did actually make some considerable progress towards arriving at a solution just a few weeks ago using a method which in a moment of clarity and hubris I termed The Nightingale Method. I believe that it offers the best solution to the coin / country debate. It's quite a long read but very worthwhile. It's quite reassuring to me to find that Dear Leader has a sound grasp of the issues so it's quite possible that we have a solution to one of the numismatic world's longest running disputes.
​
​To summarize-
​

• There is no point in defining a country unless you also define a coin and vice versa.
  ​
  
• It should be result driven, not exception driven.
  ​
  
• The problem being addressed is a cataloging issue, not a geographic or historical one.
  ​
  
• A set of principles are decided and exceptions are tackled by comparing with those and the existing populations.
  ​
  
• The process is tested before live running by applying it to specific examples and measuring the result against the pre defined objectives.
  ​
  
• Decisions are taken by a panel rather than the referee who may have a bias towards "his" countries.
  ​
  

​
​To arrive at a compromise which more or less suits everybody and meets the needs of collectors would be a major feather in the Numista cap and would go a long way to cementing Numista's place as a premier cataloging tool. It would be nice to see K&M adjusting to the new model instead of being in the driving seat. Future numismatists would be gratified to find the issue settled already instead of each generation having the same discussion.
​
​So we have an agreed framework, it just needs to be finalized, the actual process of how to submit a review request decided and a panel selected and given the tools to implement it.
​

​

Cita: "Jarcek"​I believe that we should split "country list" to two separate listings:
​
​UN recognized or historical countries and Partially or NON-recognized countries.
​
​Also these two categories should itself have some more divisions, but that would be entirely different discussion.
​
​

​I am split on this idea. it does make sense that countries be recognized as such, but I don't think UN recognition should be the meter. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of countries, kingdoms, emirates, etc in history before there was a UN, some of which still exists, and most of which do not exist anymore. The problem is how to determine if they were recognized at their time and by whom. Who gives the recognizer the authority to recognize another kingdom or nation. This is a task for historians, I'm afraid...

Cita: "Jarcek"UN recognized or historical countries and Partially or NON-recognized countries.

That doesn't sound like a good idea. Because then we have to treat countries like Armenia, Cyprus and South Korea in a different way because they are not recognized by 1 UN member, so they will be in the Partially or NON-recognized countries. That seems a little odd, isn't it?

You are at the right place I am actually a historan.
But I would never argue to became the one sorting them. I just do not have enough numismatic experience. That is why I would like to propose some neutral sorting. We can never really get any compromise on what is a state or what is not.

We should actually start from the easiest one - I say lets make an umbrella of ancient coins - there is no arguing what are and what are not ancient coins. Country list is now evergrowing monster and we need to sort it somehow.

You're a historian? Cool, good to know personally i believe if they were used as currency they're coins, even if privately mminted, and they should be catalogued by issuers, not necessarily by country. Of course most coins were issued by countries, but by this definition of being used as currency not all coins were issued by countries, but also factories, territories, etc. After all the purpose of coins is to have something of s standard value that you can trade for something else, that way we don't have to keep chickens and puts handy to trade for fur and vegetables. I know this is not how coins are traditionally catalogued, but it makes sense to me given their purpose.

Look at Faroe Islands, that is a good example. Recently, ngdawa managed to find some token coinage from there, and that is what is token section under states used for - tokens that were not minted by official government, but nevertheless were used as currency.

Cita: "Jarcek"​Look at Faroe Islands, that is a good example. Recently, ngdawa managed to find some token coinage from there, and that is what is token section under states used for - tokens that were not minted by official government, but nevertheless were used as currency.

​good example. They are considered tokens, but if they're used as currency, then they are currency. I think too much emphasis is put on whether or not they are official legal tender.