Consistency of city names and page titles for German Notgeld

Good evening,

I wanted to ask you all how we should handle the consistency of page titles and city names in the German Notgeld banknote section.

General aspects:

1. I would exclude the type of municipality in the title (Stadt, Gemeinde, Flecken, Markt) and give just the name, as this type has no real value of information and makes the page title longer and less clear.

2. I would waive abbreviations in city names (Frankfurt am Main instead of Frankfurt a. Main, Frankfurt an der Oder instead of Frankfurt (Oder), Frankfurt (O.), Frankfurt/Oder, Frankfurt/O., Frankfurt a. Oder etc etc.) to be unmistakable.

3. I would use the "Bad" supplement as it was when the note was issued (There is a steadily increasing number of cities becoming a spa, for example Langensalza is Bad Langensalza from that day on. It became Bad during the 2nd half of 20th century, so the Notgeld is under Langensalza instead of today's name Bad Langensalza).

4. In case of eponymous cities, I would use their official name to distingiush (for example "Neustadt an der Orla"). Those can change from time to time (Neustadt an der Haardt is Neustadt an der Weinstraße since 1950), then, I would prefer the mode used at issuing time. A question is what to do with cities that have no official supplement (there are, for example, more than 20 places called "Hermsdorf" without supplement). In this case I would just add the state or province (... in Thüringen; ... in Pommern) or for eponymous municipalities within the same state/province a bigger city nearby (for example "Roda bei Ilmenau").

5. I would give both names separated by a / for renamed cities, the 1920 name in first place and the actual one in second place like Alt Gaarz/Rerik or Roda/Stadtroda - I think this is very important for usability.

6. I'm not sure what to do with C and K in city names. Many cities, especially in Rhine province and the western parts of Germany changed their spelling like Cöln/Köln, Coblenz/Koblenz, Crefeld/Krefeld etc. using both forms simultaneously during the 1920s. I would suggest to give the actual form in second place behind a / if it differs from the one used on the banknote (which should stand in first place). Both forms should appear to simplify searching the catalogue.

7. I'm not sure how to handle ß/ss in page titles. There is an official German spelling for every city which was unchanged since 1900 in 99 % of the cases. That didn't restrain cities from using the ss-spelling on their banknotes erroneously instead of the official ß (but just from case to case, not on all their notes [of course...^^]). To be consistent, I would use ß in title if it is the correct form. There is possibly a simple technical solution if the numista search shows also entries with ß when a user searches for ss.

8. I would give both names separated by a / for now Danish cities in northern Schleswig as they changed from Germany to Denmark just during the Notgeld era. German in first place and Danish in second?

9. What about cities changing to Poland, Russia or Lithuania after 1945? Should we give the actual city name in second place after a / in the title? Or just as information in the comments section but not in the title?

District issues:

Should district issues be titled with "Kreis Aachen", "Aachen, Kreis" or "Aachen; Kreis"?

Private issues:

I would give the city name in first place and the issuer's name in second place after a ; like "Berlin; Siemens".

Did I forget something? Are my ideas consistent? Please let me know your opinions or suggestions to get some structure in the page titles.

Thank you :-)
Michael

You have put some thought in this. Good job.

Michael,
The same thing also applies to Austrian Notgeld notes as well.

Belgian, French, Portuguese, & Spanish Notgeld notes should also have their city & page titles translated into English as well, along with the Italian 1970's emergency local notes.

Aidan.

Thank you, Michael,

Here are my thoughts:

1. I agree, this should go in the name of the issuers (yet to be created).

2. Agree

3. Agree, if it was part of the name. But if there are any "Kurort", they should also follow rule #1.

4. Agree, this should be reflected by the name of the new issuers as well. Otherwise it will be impossible to distinguish them when submitting a new coin in the dropdown list.

5. I don't agree. We should use the name used at the time. We have dozens of other issuers on Numista that changed their name (e.g. Danzig / Gdansk, Panormus / Ziz / Palermo, Ephesus / Ayasoluk, Hermannstadt / Sibiu etc). They use the name at the time.

6. I don't agree. This can be included in the search function (i.e. search for Coblenz will take you to Koblenz). But we should not complicate the name of the issuer or title of coins. The names didn't change, just the spelling. So I would use the spelling that is in line with current German language norms.

6.b. We should also use English / French names if available (see this for Cologne)

7. same as 6. It's just spelling and we should use modern German spelling.

8. I don't agree. same reason as 5.

9. Same as 5, I don't agree.

10. It should go in the issuer and should be in English / French: "Aachen, District of". Title is up to you.

11. The name of the private issuer should go in the issuing entity, where we currently have Banks for banknotes. Title is up to you.

A comment for 5, 8, 9: We have a place to include general descriptions of issuers (see an example) - right at the top, under the search field. I think that's where we should include comments regarding name changes, or different spellings.

A final comment is whether it is actually necessary to have the name of the issuer in brackets once we have separate issuers for each city. So if there will be an issuer called Koblenz, should we call the coin "50 Pfennig (Koblenz)"? We don't call all the French coins "1 Franc (France)"...

Best

Thanks for your answers

5. Ok, so just the name at time for the title and the current name for the comment section (so that it can be found either way when a user types "Rerik" in the search field).

6. Ok, so just the current spelling and the form given on the note as a redirect (is it called this way at Numista?) in the search function. How does that work? I write a list of redirects with C/K, ß/ss, ä, ö, ü and send it to where to create those?

6b. Ok (there are only very few affected). The German form gets also a redirect in the search to ensure that I get the matches when I type in "Köln"?

8. The Danish case is a bit more specific as there are often bilingual notes with German and Danish inscription same as issues given in the other language than the country it belonged to for revenge reasons as some kind of municipal rejection/insurrection. So we rule over and use just the form in the language of the state where the city belonged to at issuing time or use the form given on the note (if both are given, then both)? Next question: Are Notgeld notes from northern Schleswig after Danish assignment (1920) still German Notgeld or already Danish Notgeld?

9. Ok

10. District case is complicated again (I wrote some details in the referee forum for this case). In particular I would be careful with using English translations as there are no exact words to the specific administration grades as district can mean every subprovincial entity, it's a bit unspecific.

If the Notgeld section will be organized via cities in the future, I agree that there is no longer need to put the city in the page title.