Hello,
I suggest merging the Gold Coast and Ghana in a single issuer with different ruling periods for consistency with the rest of the catalogue. Similar to Ceylon / Sri Lanka, DRG / Zaire, etc.
Thank you
» Quick access to the last post
Hello,
I suggest merging the Gold Coast and Ghana in a single issuer with different ruling periods for consistency with the rest of the catalogue. Similar to Ceylon / Sri Lanka, DRG / Zaire, etc.
Thank you
Gold Coast should be separate from Ghana, given the fact that the Gold Coast had its own coins under King George III's reign.
Aidan.
Agreed. I copied currency and ruler from Gold Coast to Ghana, you can now move coins :-)
Another error. These will have to be reverted when we finally recognize that we can't pretend these old names didn't exist.
ceh2019
Another error. These will have to be reverted when we finally recognize that we can't pretend these old names didn't exist.
Seeing you popping in every thread to clash the Numista way to organize countries is, lets admit it, a bit boring…
You know the choice which was made. Fighting it in every thread as if you didnt know it could just lead to inconsistencies if at some spots we dont apply guidelines.
You can disagree, but please dont make as if the position was not clear enough .
We differentiate issuers only when territories were greatly impacted.
If names are what bothers you, we can simply list all names an issuer had in the past in the “issuer description area” which is sadly just empty most of the time
I just added this info for Sri Lanka to show you: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/sri-lanka-1.html
Compendium
ceh2019
Another error. These will have to be reverted when we finally recognize that we can't pretend these old names didn't exist.
Seeing you popping in every thread to clash the Numista way to organize countries is, lets admit it, a bit boring…
You know the choice which was made. Fighting it in every thread as if you didnt know it could just lead to inconsistencies if at some spots we dont apply guidelines.
You can disagree, but please dont make as if the position was not clear enough .
We differentiate issuers only when territories were greatly impacted.
If names are what bothers you, we can simply list all names an issuer had in the past in the “issuer description area” which is sadly just empty most of the time
If you find accuracy boring, you've chosen the wrong hobby. Writing a catalogue is all about accuracy. I'll keep pointing out the errors (along with many others) until the administrators understand this. Just because a “position” is clear doesn't make it right. Adding text only visible once a user is inside the section where something is hidden is no solution at all.
Not accuracy, just your point of view which disregards rationale we have to not follow it. I never said your point of view made no sense, I tried to explain why it would lead to more issues than solutions.
But please, feel free to suggest a whole new typology of issuers for the entire database based on your point of view, and deal with all the issues that come with it :-)
It is always simple to criticize from one point of view, forgetting guidelines must be relevant for all issuers.
Compendium
Not accuracy, just your point of view which disregards rationale we have to not follow it. I never said your point of view made no sense, I tried to explain why it would lead to more issues than solutions.
But please, feel free to suggest a whole new typology of issuers for the entire database based on your point of view, and deal with all the issues that come with it :-)
It is always simple to criticize from one point of view, forgetting guidelines must be relevant for all issuers.
Accuracy isn't a point of view. If you think it is, it explains why you are exasperated when people points out inaccuracies. I'm more than happy to help establish a proper, accurate list of issuers. If you represent the facts accurately, there won't be any issues.
To bring this back to the original request, it seems you are saying that Gold Coast and Ghana should be merged based on their having had essentially the same borders? Here's a (fairly rough) map of West Africa from decades after the coinage for the Gold Coast was issued (1796-1818). As you can see, even then, the borders were completely different from those of modern Ghana. Let's leave things as they are.
ceh2019
To bring this back to the original request, it seems you are saying that Gold Coast and Ghana should be merged based on their having had essentially the same borders? Here's a (fairly rough) map of West Africa from decades after the coinage for the Gold Coast was issued (1796-1818). As you can see, even then, the borders were completely different from those of modern Ghana. Let's leave things as they are.
Does it means we should also separate France or Roman Empire for each time the borders moved? Or if names are alpha and omega of issuers, should we separate Libya from Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977–2011)? It is an endless task.
I dont say it's easy to cut issuers per our rationale, we simply try to keep consistency while referring to coins from an issuer which still exists today. And to name this issuer, we chose to use its latest name.
Is gold coast the ancestor of Ghana? If yes, I think coins should be under same issuer, and using apropriate currencies and ruling authorities to dustinguis periods relevant for numismats.
Compendium
Does it means we should also separate France or Roman Empire for each time the borders moved? Or if names are alpha and omega of issuers, should we separate Libya from Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977–2011)? It is an endless task.
I dont say it's easy to cut issuers per our rationale, we simply try to keep consistency while referring to coins from an issuer which still exists today. And to name this issuer, we chose to use its latest name.
Is gold coast the ancestor of Ghana? If yes, I think coins should be under same issuer, and using apropriate currencies and ruling authorities to dustinguis periods relevant for numismats.
I've never supported using borders to define issuers, so I wouldn't agree with splitting France in that way. I've also never argued using the titles of countries to define issuers, so I wouldn't agree with splitting Libya in that way. I advocate the simplest system of all, using the name of the place that issued the piece. Just the name, not the title. Its shear simplicity ensures accuracy is easy to achieve. For cases, such as Poland, where there are large gaps during which a name wasn't used (for whatever reason) we can have sub-sections if we feel they're justified. I can think of a handful of cases (e.g., Myanmar/Burma) where the name of a country has changed in one language but not another, where some discussion may be required.
Once everything is in its proper place, we can group issuers as we see fit but we can also have a view which lists everything alphabetically. Please consider this. It will make the catalogue much better and practically eliminate future queries regarding its fundamental organization.
Again, I understand what you say : Numista could be a puzzle, or a mosaic of unlinked issuers being just names (hence the alphabetical order you mention).
When I discovered Numista, it was not the chosen org. So maybe I'm biased by choices made by others, but I just try to bring consistency.
Even if it seems more sophisticated, I like the way it is organized. In this system, “issuer” does not simply mean a name, but an historical construct named after its latest iteration. Zaire and RDC are the same issuer with two successive names.
I guess everything depends on what we think an issuer is. The Numista philosophy which I made mine is that an issuer is (if I'm not wrong) a continued form of legal power on a territory, whatever changes of names, political systems, etc which are represented in “ruling authority” field.
So we only create new issuers when territory or population changes are brutal and long-lasting: cf USSR/ Russia or Germany/RFA/RDA.
Is anyone else than you upset with this philosophy?
Compendium
Again, I understand what you say : Numista could be a puzzle, or a mosaic of unlinked issuers being just names (hence the alphabetical order you mention).
When I discovered Numista, it was not the chosen org. So maybe I'm biased by choices made by others, but I just try to bring consistency.
Even if it seems more sophisticated, I like the way it is organized. In this system, “issuer” does not simply mean a name, but an historical construct named after its latest iteration. Zaire and RDC are the same issuer with two successive names.
I guess everything depends on what we think an issuer is. The Numista philosophy which I made mine is that an issuer is (if I'm not wrong) a continued form of legal power on a territory, whatever changes of names, political systems, etc which are represented in “ruling authority” field.
So we only create new issuers when territory or population changes are brutal and long-lasting: cf USSR/ Russia or Germany/RFA/RDA.
Is anyone else than you upset with this philosophy?
I'm afraid you're missing a couple points. First, Numista is a catalogue. A catalogue is useless if it is inaccurate. Numista is increasing full of glaring inaccuracies and is becoming increasingly useless. Plenty of others can see this and have pointed it out on numerous forum threads. Names matter because they are the way a place is identified. Regardless of whether we like or dislike a name change, it's happened and, as cataloguers, we must recognize it. Not all name changes are “brutal” but even when they are, we must use them. As individuals, we may oppose them but as cataloguers we must treat them as part of history and record them accurately.
Another thing you've missed in my proposal is the following:
“Once everything is in its proper place, we can group issuers as we see fit…”
That grouping allows us to place alongside each other, for example, Belgian Congo, DRC (1964-1971), Zaïre and DRC (1997-) under an appropriate heading, thereby preserving your very important idea of continuity whilst, at the same time, preserving complete accuracy. This method works. I've been using it to catalogue my own collection for over three decades without any difficulties.
ceh2019
That grouping allows us to place alongside each other, for example, Belgian Congo, DRC (1964-1971), Zaïre and DRC (1997-) under an appropriate heading, thereby preserving your very important idea of continuity whilst, at the same time, preserving complete accuracy. This method works. I've been using it to catalogue my own collection for over three decades without any difficulties.
Just, I will not follow the whole discussion but how did we end up putting a wrong flag in Zaire when before it was well display?
A lack of consistency with flags in my opinion… Before it was display and now we display the wrong flag, the current flag display to Zaire never was the flag of Zaire, how do we deal with that? Should we remove all the flags for the sack of consistency?
Indomini16's comment just raises one of many inaccuracies that have been introduced by removing country names that have changed from our list of issuers. We can have accurate names and indicate the continuity of issuers. They are not mutually exclusive.
ceh2019
Indomini16's comment just raises one of many inaccuracies
Well, I don't know if there is more o no and that's not my point, but if I look in the ISSUER browsner and when I introduce Zaïre, I expect to find Zaïre no Congo … I mean if we want to be consistent with the coins if I look for Zaïre I should find Zaïre with the flag, otherwise we have to change the name of the brosner and remove all the flags to be consistent.
Again I am not in favor or against any solution but I like the things well defined and right now we are playing with greys areas.
I dont know when this change happened.
I feel a lot of history and frustrations here.
Sorry I can't give better answers than those already provided.
Compendium
Agreed. I copied currency and ruler from Gold Coast to Ghana, you can now move coins :-)
Thank you
All items have been moved and the issuer and its dependencies can be deleted.
I would also suggest adding “Gold Coast” as an alias for Ghana. And maybe “Gana” and “Gaana” too, the spellings in the other official languages of Ghana.
Sorry, there are actually two banknotes left to be moved. But the Bank of the Gold Coast needs to be reassigned to Ghana too
thank you
stratocaster
Sorry, there are actually two banknotes left to be moved. But the Bank of the Gold Coast needs to be reassigned to Ghana too
thank you
All done!
Indomini16
How will you deal with flag?
Seems to me like a rhetorical question ^^
Well, as you want :-)
The Gold Coast flag is well display on the new empty Goal Coast and wrongly display in Ghana.
Ok.
You are aware that a bunch of items in Numista have wrong flags attached, right? For instance in France this flag was continously used only starting 1830, so should we move all coins from before elsewhere just for them to get another flag?
Flags are just a nice decoration for our issuers list, they are not attached to items directly.
What you'd wish maybe is some kind of possibility to attach flags to ruling authorities?
Compendium
What you'd wish maybe is some kind of possibility to attach flags to ruling authorities?
The Zaïre flag was display correctly since 2011 and it was removed to “improve“ the catalo in 2023.
So what I can’t see is the improvement when it means you remove something that worked correctly.
It was probably removed for consistency. You didnt answer my question about french catalog
Compendium
It was probably removed for consistency. You didnt answer my question about french catalog
I didn’t answer because there are change of flags but not country name, so irrelevant from my point of view. I agree we should keep the ultimate Country flag, so in this case the last flag of Gold Coast before it change to Ghana.
Compendium
stratocaster
Sorry, there are actually two banknotes left to be moved. But the Bank of the Gold Coast needs to be reassigned to Ghana too
thank you
All done!
So even when there are massive changes in the borders between two issuers, you are still prepared to delete the earlier one from the catalogue? To have guidelines which promote inaccuracy is bad enough, but this doesn't even follow those bad guidelines!
Compendium
Again, I understand what you say : Numista could be a puzzle, or a mosaic of unlinked issuers being just names (hence the alphabetical order you mention).
When I discovered Numista, it was not the chosen org. So maybe I'm biased by choices made by others, but I just try to bring consistency.
Even if it seems more sophisticated, I like the way it is organized. In this system, “issuer” does not simply mean a name, but an historical construct named after its latest iteration. Zaire and RDC are the same issuer with two successive names.
I guess everything depends on what we think an issuer is. The Numista philosophy which I made mine is that an issuer is (if I'm not wrong) a continued form of legal power on a territory, whatever changes of names, political systems, etc which are represented in “ruling authority” field.
So we only create new issuers when territory or population changes are brutal and long-lasting: cf USSR/ Russia or Germany/RFA/RDA.
Is anyone else than you upset with this philosophy?
Yes, you are overcomplicating things.
stratocaster
Sorry, there are actually two banknotes left to be moved. But the Bank of the Gold Coast needs to be reassigned to Ghana too
thank you
Gold Coast should NOT be directly under ‘Ghana’ - but under ‘Gold Coast’ - as Ghana also covers what was British Togoland as well as what was the Gold Coast itself.
Aidan.
Compendium
Is anyone else than you upset with this philosophy?
Absolutely! If the coin states it's from Ceylon, I expect to find it under the issuer Ceylon, with the appropiate flag. Same goes for Zaire, Swaziland and all other issuers that got lost in this new ‘consistency’…
smvdbrink
Compendium
Is anyone else than you upset with this philosophy?
Absolutely! If the coin states it's from Ceylon, I expect to find it under the issuer Ceylon, with the appropiate flag. Same goes for Zaire, Swaziland and all other issuers that got lost in this new ‘consistency’…
Hear, hear and another hear. Compendium: Stop messing around, it doesn't bring anything to numista!
Still more upvotes than dowvotes though ;-)
Anyway as I said many times: we'll discuss with admins, it takes time :-)
4 against 3 out of 150.000 members. Are you joking. You cannot beleive in a statistic like that???
Sjoelund
4 against 3 out of 150.000 members. Are you joking. You cannot beleive in a statistic like that???
Hence the ;-)
There is currently a discussion of the whole principle of deleting issuers on the referees' forum. I've requested it be moved to the website forum so everyone can contribute but that hasn't happened yet. I think this discussion and others demonstrate why the wider membership deserves its say.
ceh2019
There is currently a discussion of the whole principle of deleting issuers on the referees' forum. I've requested it be moved to the website forum so everyone can contribute but that hasn't happened yet. I think this discussion and others demonstrate why the wider membership deserves its say.
Good idea, maybe we'll avoid 3:2 decisions, which are ridiculous!
I admit that I didn't look into detail too much when I made this proposal.
The Gold Coast seems to have two meanings, one for the “Gold Coast Colony” and one for the “Governorate of the Gold Coast”, which includes the Colony and three other territories. Modern Ghana corresponds to the Governorate.
I don't know to which “Gold Coast” the coins and banknotes refer. I agree that if it's the Colony, my suggestion was a mistake.
If not, the ruling periods should be added, and Gold Coast should appear in the Features panel.
stratocaster
I admit that I didn't look into detail too much when I made this proposal.
The Gold Coast seems to have two meanings, one for the “Gold Coast Colony” and one for the “Governorate of the Gold Coast”, which includes the Colony and three other territories. Modern Ghana corresponds to the Governorate.
I don't know to which “Gold Coast” the coins and banknotes refer. I agree that if it's the Colony, my suggestion was a mistake.
If not, the ruling periods should be added, and Gold Coast should appear in the Features panel.
The Gold Coast's only coins were struck under the reign of King George III.
The Gold Coast covered the area of modern Ghana - except in the east, which was British Togoland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Coast_(British_colony) .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Togoland .
Aidan.
Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 20:15.