As some of you may already know, Xavier released earlier this week a new feature, allowing issuers which changed of name to appear as separate sub issuers for each period. See below an example about Djibouti:
This feature is quite powerful, and we still have a list of issuers to process (like Mali, Isles de France and de Bourbon, French Polynesia…)
My suggestion/question today is: how far do you think we should use this feature?
Should we use it for all former colonies that became independent? Should we use it to split large historical periods of countries which issued coins and banknotes under different forms along history?
Examples:
- Lippe, a German State, is currently using our other feature about “groups of rulers” to differentiate 4 different periods: Lordship of Lippe (1123-1528), County of Lippe (1528-1613), County of Lippe-Detmold (1613-1789) and Principality of Lippe (1789-1918); should we use the sub period issuer instead? - France for instance could be separated by major periods: Kingdom of France, First French Republic, First French Empire, etc.
As the successive names are already searchable in the search engine, and can already have flags, only changes if we were to use the new feature are: - appearance in the country list (and therefore a longer list for sure, making it probably less handy) - more precise title for the section page like here:
Upvote = I think the new feature would bring value for those situations
Downvote = I think we should stay as it is for those situations
Feedback, challenges and questions in thread, thanks!
I think the 'sub-issuers' will work very well – Djibuti example illustrates it nicely.
It should serve to improve the situation regarding some contentious nomenclature for issuers currently in use.
The primary objective is that people will be able to quickly locate what they are looking for.
Thanks!
Do you confirm you'd wish to see in the country list differentiated periods between Lordships, Counties and Duchies for instance for all areas which experienced this evolution?
Question is, whether we would not be facing and overwhelmingly large and not really convenient country list, if we would for example go for
Czechoslovakia:
First Republic
Second Republic
Third Republic
People's Republic
Socialist Republic
Federative Republic
The criterium for splitting a country should, in my opinion, be the official name that a country had during a period, provided that there are coins, notes or exonumia for that period. If all periods have coins, notes or exonumia, I'd split Czechoslovakia in:
Czech and Slovak Federative Republic (1990 - 1992)
First Republic, Second Republic and so on should not be the indicator for splitting a country, as you most likely won't find those terms on coins or banknotes. If you look at N#5739, the period states First Republic (1918-1938), but the coin states it's from Republika Československá.
I also think that we should split Egypt again, as it used to be a few years ago. For instance, The Kingdom of Egypt was different from the republic it is now, with a different name and a different flag. I would like to see that returned to it's former division.
Furthermore, I feel that Myanmar should be split in Birma and Myanmar and Eswatini should be split in Swaziland and Eswatini.
Edit: As you can see, I would like to see the catalog reflect the history of a country. We're not historians here, but if a coin states that it's from Swaziland, that should be reflected in the catalog.
I think the 'sub-issuers' will work very well – Djibuti example illustrates it nicely.
It should serve to improve the situation regarding some contentious nomenclature for issuers currently in use.
The primary objective is that people will be able to quickly locate what they are looking for.
Thanks!
Do you confirm you'd wish to see in the country list differentiated periods between Lordships, Counties and Duchies for instance for all areas which experienced this evolution?
This would be outside my area of expertise to comment on.
However, it might make it too complex, and overly cumbersome to use.
For banknotes for example, I would see it do the following to Finland:
Split Finland into 4 sub-issuers:
Finland
-Swedish Rule up to 1809 -Grand Duchy, Russian rule 1809-1917 -Senate Rule – post independence and pre-republic 1917-1918 -Republic 1918-2002
A second example is the ever-contentious Guyana, split into 3 sub-issuers:
Guyana
-Demerara and Essequibo pre-1837 -British Guiana 1837-1965 -Guyana – Independent from 1965
These two above are relatively straightforward, I think.
Jarcek's example shows how quickly it can become complex. Poland would be similar to Czechoslovakia.
Note, I am not arguing against the complexity – just pointing it out as a caution to be considered.
The criterium for splitting a country should, in my opinion, be the official name that a country had during a period, provided that there are coins, notes or exonumia for that period. If all periods have coins, notes or exonumia, I'd split Czechoslovakia in:
Czech and Slovak Federative Republic (1990 - 1992)
First Republic, Second Republic and so on should not be the indicator for splitting a country, as you most likely won't find those terms on coins or banknotes. If you look at N#5739, the period states First Republic (1918-1938), but the coin states it's from Republika Československá.
I also think that we should split Egypt again, as it used to be a few years ago. For instance, The Kingdom of Egypt was different from the republic it is now, with a different name and a different flag. I would like to see that returned to it's former division.
Furthermore, I feel that Myanmar should be split in Birma and Myanmar and Eswatini should be split in Swaziland and Eswatini.
Edit: As you can see, I would like to see the catalog reflect the history of a country. We're not historians here, but if a coin states that it's from Swaziland, that should be reflected in the catalog.
First of all, and as I have already commented in another Topic, express my gratitude and congratulations for this new feature. I LOVE IT!!!
What I think would be necessary is to be able to separate all the existing colonial periods (to begin with). Later, we could address the issue of the different periods (Republics, Socialist Republics, Kingdoms, Duchies…) in which there was no real change in the name of the country. I would like them to be included as well, but I think it could be done after the issue of the Colonies.
What I am not clear about is what these periods should be like. For example, Angola (and many other Portuguese colonies), has two “colonial periods”:
1. Colony of the Portuguese Empire (1910-1951)
2. Overseas province of Portugal (1951-1975)
Should we write both periods or only Portuguese Angola (1910-1975)?
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
None of this would have been necessary if the old guidelines hadn't been so poor.
In order not to turn this into a meaningless feature, let's start by using it to restore the real names to all issuers. Then, if we feel it's warranted, we can use it to separate distinct eras when the name didn't change. Personally, I see no benefit in splitting the Electorate and Kingdom of Bavaria, any more than splitting the Kingdoms, Republics and Empires of France from one another. We have the ruling authority field for this.
From what I can see, the following have been missed out of the initial restorative sweep. Please feel free to extend this list, as I'm sure I won't have spotted everything.
British Caribbean Territories, Eastern Group
British Guyana
Democratic Republic of the Congo (1964-1971)
Equatorial African States
French Cochinchina
French Oceania
Great Britain
Hejaz and Nejd
Macedonia
New Granada
Portuguese Guinea
Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia
Siam
Western Sāmoa
Some of these were deleted under the previous guidelines, others had yet to be addressed, to the best of my knowledge.
A few other thing need attention. First, what are the criteria for whether the list of "sub-sections" appears without clicking on “See sub-sections”? British Honduras appears straight away but Ceylon and many others are hidden to begin with. More specifically, Portuguese Timor should have the dates 1524-1975, not 1910-2002. I see that Danish West Indies is still listed under US Virgin Islands even though there is nothing listed for US Virgin Islands. I know I'm not the only one who see's this as anomalous.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Amazing, the catalog is now great, searching different periods and issuers is turning coin collecting much more enjoyable. Congratulations for the great job!
About the poll, I guess the common sense should prevail, shouldn't a strict rule affect the entire catalog, will never make everyone happy.
The way is now looks more numismatic-oriented, “big changes” = separated issuer inside the major issuer.
“big changes” I would say: name change + government type change for example
Amazing, the catalog is now great, searching different periods and issuers is turning coin collecting much more enjoyable. Congratulations for the great job!
About the poll, I guess the common sense should prevail, shouldn't a strict rule affect the entire catalog, will never make everyone happy.
The way is now looks more numismatic-oriented, “big changes” = separated issuer inside the major issuer.
“big changes” I would say: name change + government type change for example
I believe that in this line that Geison reported would serve as an initial script.
That not a simple territorial analysis be taken into consideration; and that the history of the country/region is paramount. Numismatics and history are intrinsically linked and we love "studying history" through coins!
Congratulations on the work of the Numista team and may they be attentive to the demands and desires of us, collectors! The work will be hard but, as usual, enjoyable for those who love numismatics. ;-)
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
As a result there was an inflation in the number of issuers in my collection following this change :) But the storage of my collection was already organized like that, so that doesn't change
By the way the issuer name “Republic of the Congo (Leopoldville)” is inapropriate, I'll issue a request to change this name
Then … we must not forget that the number of ribbons, sorry orbits, on a coin reveals a modification of the borders of an issuer!
The number of stars on a flag of another large country too but this flag does not appear on the coins.
This new feature is great, but I think the options are now very broad and we have to choose which one is the most appropriate. I think this is the right time to choose the best option.
We have to be careful, since including certain periods in all issuers can create a huge and impractical list of countries. On the other hand, if these periods are "hidden", you could see excessive "See sub-sections" phrases, which would not look very good either.
Maybe an icon (that when you hover over it indicates "See periods") next to the issuer indicating that it has drop-down periods, without having to fill out the "See subsections" screen would be good, and then all the periods could be included without reloading the list in excess.
Something similar to this:
With an icon similar to this:
This would also improve, in my opinion, the display of the current menu, where you can see excessive "See sub-sections" and the list of issuers is displayed worse.
EDIT: Example.
This is what you would see in the main menu:
And this is what you would see after clicking the drop-down menu icon:
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Good idea! I would even use this simple toggle for all sub issuers; we never really need the sentence “see sub sections”, the toggle speaks for itself imo
I can see quite broad lead for expanding this feature further, with concerns how it may look.
We now have to think further:
We will surely expand it to cover some problematic cases of the past, that were giving us troubles, like renamings and issuers with colonial past. But then how much we shall expand it?
Pther possibility would be setting to see reduced/expanded country list.
I can see quite broad lead for expanding this feature further, with concerns how it may look.
We now have to think further:
We will surely expand it to cover some problematic cases of the past, that were giving us troubles, like renamings and issuers with colonial past. But then how much we shall expand it?
Pther possibility would be setting to see reduced/expanded country list.
I think exactly the same, first I would start with countries that have changed their names and former colonies and, depending on the experience of these changes, it could later be expanded to periods of the same issuer.
Using Angola as an example, you could have two options, both with the drop-down menu icon:
Option 1 (perhaps we could start with something like this in all cases):
Option 2 (perhaps we could implement it in a second phase or as preferred):
And, simply to clarify concepts and in view of the individual global calculation of each one, for me this would be:
One Country (Angola)
Two Issuers (Portuguese Angola and Angola)
Four Periods
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Sim deve haver essa mudança. Primeiramente para ter melhor controle dos emissores e além termos uma iformação de mudanças históricas, sejam se relevâncias ou não.
Xavier drew my attention to this debate and I thank him, but I fear that he will not like what I have to say.
When you catalogue anything, you have two sides - some people want to group things, and others want to split things. In reality, the useful path is somewhere down the middle and one either has to make a reasonable, practically accommodating rule for deciding what gets split and what doesn't, or one needs to make the decision on a case by case basis.
On Numista, we have gone from using the Krause way of splitting countries (which I still think was the best approach) to over-grouping, and now we have undertaken a huge pendulum swing to over-splitting. This is awful, and I don't understand why users should be jerked around from one extreme to the other like this.
Making this Web site into some kind of tracker of detailed historical events does not add value to numismatics, and it doesn't add value to the study of history either. It is a kind of jingoistic internationalism where we all flex by showing how much we know about the detailed history of each country without considering what would be useful in a list of coins.
Someone has to be conceptually responsible for deciding upon how we are going to classify things ab initio, and they should hold that line. Changing that should be something that happens only in the most significant cases and those changes should be minimised. A classification system cannot be a democracy, because then it just becomes increasingly complicated until it collapses. That's what we see happening here.
I don't want to say how we should arrange the catalogue. I just want someone to pick something relevant, reasonably accurate, and simple, and to stick with that. This is not that.
On Numista, we have gone from using the Krause way of splitting countries (which I still think was the best approach) to over-grouping, and now we have undertaken a huge pendulum swing to over-splitting. This is awful, and I don't understand why users should be jerked around from one extreme to the other like this.
Just to clarify how “extreme” was the pendulum swing: we added 14 past issuer names to the list of issuers. A few more are ongoing for similar cases where a country has changed name, which will bring the total around 20, hence increasing the list of issuers by 0.5%. All these past names were already visible in the search results (when sorting by ruling authority) and on coin pages. The main difference is a change in the list of issuers, not on the content of the catalogue itself.
We are indeed worried that applying this new functionality to all name minor name changes may be too extreme, that's why we wanted to discuss with everyone here on the forum before extending it.
On a different note, I would like to clarify that no decision will be taken based on the votes only. Especially for this topic, where there has been many votes from a small part of our community, which may not necessarily reflect the opinion of Numista users overall.
On a different note, I would like to clarify that no decision will be taken based on the votes only. Especially for this topic, where there has been many votes from a small part of our community, which may not necessarily reflect the opinion of Numista users overall.
Well, then, please do as usual and don't revive unnacessary dbate by opening this thread.
I feel we are going the right way with the current solution so no need to take opinion if at the end you will do what you fell is right …
I see that Krause has been named as an appropriate way to catalog countries. Numista's way of cataloging, currently and with this new feature, is better IN MY HUMBLE OPINION and I will try to explain why with a simple example: Djibouti
1. Krause has French Afars & Isaas, French Somaliland and Djibouti separately.
2. Numista lists this country as follows:
If you search in the search engine, you will find all these territory names and the advantage of having them grouped under the current name of the territory (Djibouti) is that, at a glance, you can see that French Afars & Isaas, French Somaliland and Djibouti are the same territory or, at least, are part of it.
We are numismatists and not historians or geographers, so, being separated in Krause, it is difficult to know if French Afars & Isaas, French Somaliland and Djibouti have any relationship (and, in fact, are the same territory). Furthermore, without being historians or geographers, many of us may like these fields of science. What's better than having these territories grouped together (that tells us that they are geographically related) and also having together with them the years of existence of each issuer, with which we learn some history.
Furthermore, in Krause (I like this feature), all the colonies and different forms of government of each listed country are separated.
Ex: Madagascar
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Furthermore, in Krause (I like this feature), all the colonies and different forms of government of each listed country are separated.
Ex: Madagascar
Thanks for the interesting comparison. Just one question about your last comment: don't we also have a similar presentation on Numista?
Of course Xavier, you are absolutely right. I don't usually use the ruling authority display option and I didn't even remember it was available. Perfect!!!
Seeing this, I would only use this new main menu feature for Colonies and name changes, since, having the different periods already in each country, I think it would overload the main menu too much.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Furthermore, in Krause (I like this feature), all the colonies and different forms of government of each listed country are separated.
Ex: Madagascar
Thanks for the interesting comparison. Just one question about your last comment: don't we also have a similar presentation on Numista?
Of course Xavier, you are absolutely right. I don't usually use the ruling authority display option and I didn't even remember it was available. Perfect!!!
Seeing this, I would only use this new main menu feature for Colonies and name changes, since, having the different periods already in each country, I think it would overload the main menu too much.
+1
I think we should so that and then see how it goes :-)
On a different note, I would like to clarify that no decision will be taken based on the votes only. Especially for this topic, where there has been many votes from a small part of our community, which may not necessarily reflect the opinion of Numista users overall.
Well, then, please do as usual and don't revive unnacessary dbate by opening this thread.
I feel we are going the right way with the current solution so no need to take opinion if at the end you will do what you fell is right …
It is sad that are getting calls to hear the forum and the votes and the when we ask on the forum, we get a report within one day that some groups are trying to influence the vote and even come after those who voted in opposition to them…
It is sad that are getting calls to hear the forum and the votes and the when we ask on the forum, we get a report within one day that some groups are trying to influence the vote and even come after those who voted in opposition to them…
Can you share these reports with us (anonymized, of course)? I assume such breaches are dealt with by expulsion from the site?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Alright, but can you assure us that expulsions have been made to eradicate this behaviour? We all know how unpleasant on-line discussions can get, so knowing that the admins are acting appropriately would be a great reassurance. It would also allow consultation of the membership to take place unimpeded.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Alright, but can you assure us that expulsions have been made to eradicate this behaviour? We all know how unpleasant on-line discussions can get, so knowing that the admins are acting appropriately would be a great reassurance.
People can vote like they want. The fact that a localized group was targetting this thread is no good news for vote balance, but still nothing was made against forum policies. I'm quite shocked by your request of banning users on the ground you dislike how they behave on the forum. You maybe never had to manage a public forum yourself?
Alright, but can you assure us that expulsions have been made to eradicate this behaviour? We all know how unpleasant on-line discussions can get, so knowing that the admins are acting appropriately would be a great reassurance.
People can vote like they want. The fact that a localized group was targetting this thread is no good news for vote balance, but still nothing was made against forum policies. I'm quite shocked by your request of banning users on the ground you dislike how they behave on the forum. You maybe never had to manage a public forum yourself?
I was responding to this statement:
“we get a report within one day that some groups are trying to influence the vote and even come after those who voted in opposition to them…”
That sounds to me like behaviour outside of the realms of acceptibility. What is meant by “come after”? That's not what I've observed on any of the forums I've been reading or contributing to. I therefore supposed that this refered to behaviour beyond the forums, such as private messages, hence my request for further information on the nature of the reports.
You now talk about “a localized group” “targetting this thread”. Which posts are you refering to? I see one blank post on this forum. Apologies to this user if this is nothing to do with them but was that actually a deleted post? The admins can't refuse to consult the wider membership, then blame some of the members for making a consultation impossible without providing some kind of proof.
If you don't want to elaborate, OK, but you should realise that there's a huge trust deficit on Numista at the moment. Xavier's reversal of policy on the names of issuers has given me some hope (though not some others). All I'm hoping for is some openness to help rebuild confidence in the way Numista is run.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I therefore supposed that this refered to behaviour beyond the forums, such as private messages, hence my request for further information on the nature of the reports.
As far as I know, private messages are authorized on Numista
The admins can't refuse to consult the wider membership, then blame some of the members for making a consultation impossible without providing some kind of proof.
As Xavier reminded, counting opinions about a topic amongst readers of one thread is at best one element amongst many others when it comes to prioritization. Arguments brought by responders are, from my perspective, way more powerful than just clicking on “yes” or “no” for instance. In this regard, I thank contributors who took time to post constructive answers with relevant examples.
you should realise that there's a huge trust deficit on Numista at the moment.
Your single opinion, again and again, as if you were some kind of whistleblower… lets remind we are talking of options about how should appear a tiny part of a structured list of issuers on a Numismatics website; same informations, nothing new except some UX/UI elements to ease navigation. If you lost “trust”, your bad, not mine, but its probably not worth so much drama.
Xavier's reversal of policy on the names of issuers has given me some hope
Nothing was reverted. We created a new feature allowing to make appear some sub periods items in the country list; nothing more, nothing less. Not that hard to understand I hope.
All I'm hoping for is some openness to help rebuild confidence in the way Numista is run.
Wow. Maybe you should consider how you chose to participate in this very forum can impact confidence and trust. Bringing drama everywhere is the exact opposite of constructive discussions.
Alright, but can you assure us that expulsions have been made to eradicate this behaviour? We all know how unpleasant on-line discussions can get, so knowing that the admins are acting appropriately would be a great reassurance. It would also allow consultation of the membership to take place unimpeded.
Be assured that actions are taken each time we are made aware of infringement of the forum policy or the Terms of Use.
We usually don't communicate publicly about the specific cases. The most common sanction is a ban from the forum.
Can we please move this discussion about forum policy infringements to a different topic and go back to discussing this very promising new functionality here? 🙂
Can we please move this discussion about forum policy infringements to a different topic and go back to discussing this very promising new functionality here? 🙂
Excellent suggestion ^^
Based on comments above (notably Oynbc), I feel for now we should stick to using the new “sub period issuers” only for:
Changes of name without any other change: eg. Swaziland/Eswatini
Changes of name with independence event: eg. British Honduras/Belize
We should use simple “rulers' groups” (we do it already in some cases) for:
Change of name with political change: eg. Czechoslovak Republic/Czechoslovak Socialist Republic
Change of name with change of type of authority: eg. Kingdom of France/ Kingdom of France and Navarre/French Republic/etc.
And keep existing different issuers for:
Change of name with major change of borders: eg. German Empire/Western Germany/Eastern Germany
Can we please move this discussion about forum policy infringements to a different topic and go back to discussing this very promising new functionality here? 🙂
Excellent suggestion ^^
Based on comments above (notably Oynbc), I feel for now we should stick to using the new “sub period issuers” only for:
Changes of name without any other change: eg. Swaziland/Eswatini
Changes of name with independence event: eg. British Honduras/Belize
We should use simple “rulers' groups” (we do it already in some cases) for:
Change of name with political change: eg. Czechoslovak Republic/Czechoslovak Socialist Republic
Change of name with change of type of authority: eg. Kingdom of France/ Kingdom of France and Navarre/French Republic/etc.
And keep existing different issuers for:
Change of name with major change of borders: eg. German Empire/Western Germany/Eastern Germany
WDYT?
Hello, Compendium and other members.
Personally, I think this referral is excellent! Other possible inclusions of issuers can be discussed/considered in other forums, as is usually done.
Thank you for your patience and for bringing us a very good solution! =)
Regards,
Vladimir
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
Can we please move this discussion about forum policy infringements to a different topic and go back to discussing this very promising new functionality here? 🙂
Excellent suggestion ^^
Based on comments above (notably Oynbc), I feel for now we should stick to using the new “sub period issuers” only for:
Changes of name without any other change: eg. Swaziland/Eswatini
Changes of name with independence event: eg. British Honduras/Belize
We should use simple “rulers' groups” (we do it already in some cases) for:
Change of name with political change: eg. Czechoslovak Republic/Czechoslovak Socialist Republic
Change of name with change of type of authority: eg. Kingdom of France/ Kingdom of France and Navarre/French Republic/etc.
And keep existing different issuers for:
Change of name with major change of borders: eg. German Empire/Western Germany/Eastern Germany
WDYT?
If the change of name goes along with a change of type of authority or political change, ánd a change of flag, I feel that we should use the sub period issuers. If you change your name and your flag, you're definitely trying to reflect that the country has changed. In our catalog, Egypt has the same flag for all ruler groups, but it has changed every time there was a change in type of authority. With Czechoslovakia, the flag never really changed, so I can see how that could be just be managed with ruler groups.
If the change of name goes along with a change of type of authority or political change, ánd a change of flag, I feel that we should use the sub period issuers. If you change your name and your flag, you're definitely trying to reflect that the country has changed. In our catalog, Egypt has the same flag for all ruler groups, but it has changed every time there was a change in type of authority. With Czechoslovakia, the flag never really changed, so I can see how that could be just be managed with ruler groups.
Group of rulers can already have their own flag which update the one displayed on coins/banknotes entries
Group of rulers can already have their own flag which update the one displayed on coins/banknotes entries
I understand that, but I feel that a change of name, authority and flag is enough to mark it as a separate period and to reflect that in the country list.
I didn't really follow this because I'm normally not interested in those technicalities. But I'm asking if this would change anything for Papal states as well. I read something here about the split of BRD and DDR. Wouldn't it be a kind of similar scenario with Papal States that are split for all their mints?
Because it annoys me that currently the Rome coins go into the Papal States head issuer and all other mints have their own sub-issuer. So if you search a Rome coin, you get shown all of the sub-issuers too and the ruling authority drop-down-list doesn't exist because it's a head issuer as well (i.e. you have to search the popes manually).
Sorry if that might not have anything to do with the intended purpose of this thread. I will delete it then.
I didn't really follow this because I'm normally not interested in those technicalities. But I'm asking if this would change anything for Papal states as well. I read something here about the split of BRD and DDR. Wouldn't it be a kind of similar scenario with Papal States that are split for all their mints?
Because it annoys me that currently the Rome coins go into the Papal States head issuer and all other mints have their own sub-issuer. So if you search a Rome coin, you get shown all of the sub-issuers too and the ruling authority drop-down-list doesn't exist because it's a head issuer as well (i.e. you have to search the popes manually).
Sorry if that might not have anything to do with the intended purpose of this thread. I will delete it then.
No, I think that the proposed changes have no effect on the Papal States…
I didn't really follow this because I'm normally not interested in those technicalities. But I'm asking if this would change anything for Papal states as well. I read something here about the split of BRD and DDR. Wouldn't it be a kind of similar scenario with Papal States that are split for all their mints?
Because it annoys me that currently the Rome coins go into the Papal States head issuer and all other mints have their own sub-issuer. So if you search a Rome coin, you get shown all of the sub-issuers too and the ruling authority drop-down-list doesn't exist because it's a head issuer as well (i.e. you have to search the popes manually).
Sorry if that might not have anything to do with the intended purpose of this thread. I will delete it then.
Not the same discussion indeed but thanks for raising awareness on it. Issue here is that we didn't yet created a “Papal states” sub issuer under “Papal States” section (on which we shouldn't attach coins directly); Probably the mix up come from the fact “Papal states” means both the country itself, and its substates like we usually name it on Numista. I'm no specialist but if one can confirm Rome minted coins should simply be called “Papal States”, I can operate the change :-)
Can we please move this discussion about forum policy infringements to a different topic and go back to discussing this very promising new functionality here? 🙂
Excellent suggestion ^^
Based on comments above (notably Oynbc), I feel for now we should stick to using the new “sub period issuers” only for:
Changes of name without any other change: eg. Swaziland/Eswatini
Changes of name with independence event: eg. British Honduras/Belize
We should use simple “rulers' groups” (we do it already in some cases) for:
Change of name with political change: eg. Czechoslovak Republic/Czechoslovak Socialist Republic
Change of name with change of type of authority: eg. Kingdom of France/ Kingdom of France and Navarre/French Republic/etc.
And keep existing different issuers for:
Change of name with major change of borders: eg. German Empire/Western Germany/Eastern Germany
Alright, but can you assure us that expulsions have been made to eradicate this behaviour? We all know how unpleasant on-line discussions can get, so knowing that the admins are acting appropriately would be a great reassurance. It would also allow consultation of the membership to take place unimpeded.
Be assured that actions are taken each time we are made aware of infringement of the forum policy or the Terms of Use.
We usually don't communicate publicly about the specific cases. The most common sanction is a ban from the forum.
Thank you, Xavier. That's really all I was hoping to hear.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Based on comments above (notably Oynbc), I feel for now we should stick to using the new “sub period issuers” only for:
Changes of name without any other change: eg. Swaziland/Eswatini
Changes of name with independence event: eg. British Honduras/Belize
We should use simple “rulers' groups” (we do it already in some cases) for:
Change of name with political change: eg. Czechoslovak Republic/Czechoslovak Socialist Republic
Change of name with change of type of authority: eg. Kingdom of France/ Kingdom of France and Navarre/French Republic/etc.
And keep existing different issuers for:
Change of name with major change of borders: eg. German Empire/Western Germany/Eastern Germany
WDYT?
I agree with Swaziland/eSwatini. For British Honduras/Belize, this name change occurred before independence, so really all we need to say is “Change of Name”. I certainly agree to using ruling authority alone for changes in title. The issue of Germany is a thorny one, as discussed here. If we were constructing this catalogue in 1980, we'd clearly separate BRD and DDR. Now we know what happened in 1990, we could have a continuity from Deutsches Reich through to the BRD with the DDR as a temporary secessionist state (like the CSA). The question is whether we should use hindsight to guide us or not? Personally, I can accept either as an accurate cataloguing method.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I am very happy to see that this Topic has become a topic again with proposals from everyone to improve the catalog. 😍
Regarding the sub-issuers topic, I found this in Liberia in the main menu that I don't quite understand:
I don't know if it was an initial test to see how this new feature turned out, because Liberia only has one period since its independence from South Africa (1990) and I think it should not have this subissuer in the main menu. Maybe there is something I have missed. 🤔
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
