This was done with French overseas territories few weeks ago, last week with british territories so probably in near future also Aruba and other… we will see.
"From a legal and administrative standpoint, these four classes have varying legal status and levels of autonomy, although all permanently inhabited territories have representation in both France's National Assembly and Senate, which together make up the French Parliament.
2,816,000 people lived in overseas France in January 2023.[6] Most of these residents are citizens of France and citizens of the European Union. This makes them able to vote in French and European elections."
"They are the last remnants of the former British Empire and do not form part of the United Kingdom itself.[3] The permanently inhabited territories are internally self-governing, with the United Kingdom retaining responsibility for defence and foreign relations."
Factually this is all wrong and quite offensive. Jersey, for instance, is most definitely not part of the UK and a Jerseyman would not be very happy if it was asserted that he was!
Why do we keep having to make these crazy rearrangements?
Jersey is not BOT, this is the one of the crown dependencies.
French teritories has also different status (DOM vs TOM) and only some of them are part of EU.
In my opinion, this change (grouping the teritories/colonies/dependencies) is good (even it's not perfect) as all territories can be easily found in one place.
Jersey is not BOT, this is the one of the crown dependencies.
French teritories has also different status (DOM vs TOM) and only some of them are part of EU.
In my opinion, this change (grouping the teritories/colonies/dependencies) is good (even it's not perfect) as all territories can be easily found in one place.
Those points don't really address what I'm saying. I did not mean to suggest that Jersey was BOT, but everything I've said about BOTs also applies to the channel islands. These have never been treated as part of the UK.
I think this is a terrible rearrangement, and very unclear. I understand it completely for France because French territories, generally speaking, are part of France in law. This is emphatically not the case for British territories.
I have always been against grouping countries under others - what use is it?
I also have always requested two country lists - the current rubbish one,
plus a simple one with all countries just in plain alphabetical order.
Then a tick box in the Settings to choose which is preferred.
Two lists is clearly the way forward. Then we can all find issuers without having to know where Numista is hiding them. We can also include in this list Ceylon, British Honduras and all the other countries Numista has deleted. To answer Idolenz's question, yes, I do scroll down the list to find a country. Why else is the list there?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Numista is making the Camel dance on the top of the needle. Intellectually, it might make sense, but I really agree with ZacUK, numista is really getting weird and for no obvious reason. Numista is creating the brave new world just for the fun of a few?
It seems that there are people against this new general organization of Numista issuers. I, on the other hand, am very much in favor of the new grouping, since if someone wants to search in the search box, they can do it anyway, but this grouping makes perfect sense.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands (for example) is made up of a number of constituent countries which, in my opinion, should be grouped together.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
It seems that there are people against this new general organization of Numista issuers. I, on the other hand, am very much in favor of the new grouping, since if someone wants to search in the search box, they can do it anyway, but this grouping makes perfect sense.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands (for example) is made up of a number of constituent countries which, in my opinion, should be grouped together.
Yes, but the the same is not true for the British Overseas Territories and the Channel Islands. They are explicitly not part of the UK and should not be listed under the UK. It is simply incorrect to list them as part of the UK.
It seems that there are people against this new general organization of Numista issuers. I, on the other hand, am very much in favor of the new grouping, since if someone wants to search in the search box, they can do it anyway, but this grouping makes perfect sense.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands (for example) is made up of a number of constituent countries which, in my opinion, should be grouped together.
Yes, but the the same is not true for the British Overseas Territories and the Channel Islands. They are explicitly not part of the UK and should not be listed under the UK. It is simply incorrect to list them as part of the UK.
The British Parliament's legislation does NOT automatically apply in the Crown Dependencies unless the following reasons are given;
1 or more of them are named directly in the legislation.
1 or more of them pass local legislation extending the British Parliament's legislation to incorporate them into the local statute book(s).
In all Crown Dependencies, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London is the highest court.
They are constituent countries of the Netherlands so we grouped them.
Just curious as to who “we” are when you say "we grouped them. Who are the members deciding what is best for the membership. Shouldn't the members approve of these decisions in a show of hands, a vote?
It seems that there are people against this new general organization of Numista issuers. I, on the other hand, am very much in favor of the new grouping, since if someone wants to search in the search box, they can do it anyway, but this grouping makes perfect sense.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands (for example) is made up of a number of constituent countries which, in my opinion, should be grouped together.
Yes, but the the same is not true for the British Overseas Territories and the Channel Islands. They are explicitly not part of the UK and should not be listed under the UK. It is simply incorrect to list them as part of the UK.
Would it help if section that is now called United Kingdom would be renamed to something like “British Crown lands”?
They are constituent countries of the Netherlands so we grouped them.
Just curious as to who “we” are when you say "we grouped them. Who are the members deciding what is best for the membership. Shouldn't the members approve of these decisions in a show of hands, a vote?
It seems that there are people against this new general organization of Numista issuers. I, on the other hand, am very much in favor of the new grouping, since if someone wants to search in the search box, they can do it anyway, but this grouping makes perfect sense.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands (for example) is made up of a number of constituent countries which, in my opinion, should be grouped together.
Yes, but the the same is not true for the British Overseas Territories and the Channel Islands. They are explicitly not part of the UK and should not be listed under the UK. It is simply incorrect to list them as part of the UK.
Yes, I understand and share the fact that these territories are not part of the United Kingdom as such, but when I read the United Kingdom I understand the United Kingdom and its dependencies. The United Kingdom, as such, is already an issuer within this group.
The same goes for the Netherlands. Aruba is not part of the Netherlands either, but it is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. For this reason, the first title I understand as the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
For me, the new organization is still adequate.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
It seems that there are people against this new general organization of Numista issuers. I, on the other hand, am very much in favor of the new grouping, since if someone wants to search in the search box, they can do it anyway, but this grouping makes perfect sense.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands (for example) is made up of a number of constituent countries which, in my opinion, should be grouped together.
Yes, but the the same is not true for the British Overseas Territories and the Channel Islands. They are explicitly not part of the UK and should not be listed under the UK. It is simply incorrect to list them as part of the UK.
Would it help if section that is now called United Kingdom would be renamed to something like “British Crown lands”?
Unfortunately not. First of all, there isn't an official entity called “British Crown Lands”. Unlike with France, where overseas territories form part of France and are represented in the French parliament, the UK possessions are separate nations with their own parliaments under a governor. I can't give you the whole rundown on the constitutional arrangements because I'm not equipped to do so. I've included some Wikipedia links in one of my earlier posts.
Think of it this way: The UK and, as an example, Jersey, are different countries but they share a monarch. The same could be said for the UK and Australia. However, Australia has autonomy from the UK. Jersey, through an arrangement of convenience, has internal autonomy but relies on the UK for foreign relations and defense. It's like Andorra and France. The President of France is an ex-officio a Prince of Andorra, but that does not mean that Andorra is part of France. They just share a head of state.
So, if you were to use “British Crown Lands” as a “ country”, then why would you not put Australia, New Zealand and Canada in there too? Well, we both know that would be absurd, but that is basically what we are doing with Jersey, Guernsey, Gibraltar, etc.
I hope this helps us come to a less contentious decision about grouping British territories.
I don't see the point in comparing Jersey or Gibraltar with Australia, Canada or Andorra. Obviously, the first two are not sovereign states (and are associated, in some way, with the UK), the latter obviously are, regardless of their form of government or their Head of State.
When you think of Gibraltar, you associate it with the United Kingdom (I know it, I'm Spanish, hehehe), but when you think of Australia, currently you would never imagine it under the United Kingdom (even if they share a King).
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
I don't see the point in comparing Jersey or Gibraltar with Australia, Canada or Andorra. Obviously, the first two are not sovereign states (and are associated, in some way, with the UK), the latter obviously are, regardless of their form of government or their Head of State.
When you think of Gibraltar, you associate it with the United Kingdom (I know it, I'm Spanish, hehehe), but when you think of Australia, currently you would never imagine it under the United Kingdom (even if they share a King).
Quite the contrary. There is a substantial difference between the arrangements of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and that of the United Kingdom. To repeat myself again, Aruba is a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Gibraltar is not part of the United Kingdom. It is that simple!
And just because you think of the United Kingdom when you think of Gibraltar, it doesn't mean that people who are citizens of the United Kingdom do. This is exactly the problem! We keep rearranging the catalogue based on what a small group of people think, ignoring the reality that the system was not broken before we started the rearranging.
I don't see the point in comparing Jersey or Gibraltar with Australia, Canada or Andorra. Obviously, the first two are not sovereign states (and are associated, in some way, with the UK), the latter obviously are, regardless of their form of government or their Head of State.
When you think of Gibraltar, you associate it with the United Kingdom (I know it, I'm Spanish, hehehe), but when you think of Australia, currently you would never imagine it under the United Kingdom (even if they share a King).
Quite the contrary. There is a substantial difference between the arrangements of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and that of the United Kingdom. To repeat myself again, Aruba is a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Gibraltar is not part of the United Kingdom. It is that simple!
And just because you think of the United Kingdom when you think of Gibraltar, it doesn't mean that people who are citizens of the United Kingdom do. This is exactly the problem! We keep rearranging the catalogue based on what a small group of people think, ignoring the reality that the system was not broken before we started the rearranging.
Me and some friends had discussed things such as making a two boxes, one for countries, and one for countries and territories. I also saw someone mention a setting where it would ungroup anything in the list
We could rename the section of Netherlands to Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Concerning Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles: for now, to put all these islands under ‘the Kingdom of the Netherlands’ sounds like a good choice to me, better than keeping it under Netherlands as it is now. To maintain the same alphabetical order, I think it is better to name it ‘Netherlands, Kingdom of the’ though.
In 2010 the Netherlands Antilles were dissolved, they were not part of the Netherlands, though they were part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Since then, the islands Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba are forming ‘Caribbean Netherlands’, as a special local authority they officially are now part of the Netherlands, yet strangely they use the US$ as currency.
Sint Maarten (the Dutch part of the island) and Curaçao are considered to be countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, they are not part of the European Union though, yet citizens have the same rights as EU citizens.
Aruba has a ‘status aparte’, it became a country within the Kingdom, it became independent from the Antilles in 1996. Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten have the right at some point in the future to gain complete independence, if they would choose so.
Besides coins I love geometry. The avatar consists of each of the 35 hexominoes used precisely once. With the 5 large yellow shapes placed like this, the solution for tiling the remaining 30 hexominoes is unique.
They are constituent countries of the Netherlands so we grouped them.
Can you at least add a column when exporting to excel with the country name, as is on the coin? Was making my anual inventory and all my Aruba coins “disappeared” from my latest sheet. For the website, ok, not that difference, as Aruba is listed under Netherlands, but it's gone from excel…
Add column issuer to your export file, then you will see all issuers including Aruba.
Issuer is selected by default so that won't help. The problem is that the excel file is not sorted alphabetically by issuer but by country which is not selected by default. So Aruba is now located in the middle of the file, not at the top with the As.
Add column issuer to your export file, then you will see all issuers including Aruba.
Issuer is selected by default so that won't help. The problem is that the excel file is not sorted alphabetically by issuer but by country which is not selected by default. So Aruba is now located in the middle of the file, not at the top with the As.
A bit of clarification. My coins/banknotes are organised alphabetically by the name of the country writen on it. So If I get the coin and read Aruba, it's Aruba, goes into the A section, and I don't care if it the issuer or country. It's easier for me to look at the coin and locate the info. The problem is that sometimes that name are at the country column, sometimes at the issuer column. So a column with the name of the place that is actually on the coin/banknote, would, for me, very useful, since now I need another sheets, with a lot of formulas, to “fix” that issue. That's absolutely not a issue when using the website, but for excel, well, my OCD dislikes it :)
Quoting Shakespeare, I'm afraid that "something is wrong (the great poet wrote rotten!) in Numista", since countries dissappear, issuers get more importance than countries or are equaled with states, territories and dependencies are rearranged, states were divided into “new” invented sub-states.
And all this in application of a very inusual and complicated catalogue methodology which in many cases lacks of any historical or constitutional background.
Please be careful, don't create a Camel, like Sjoelund nicely said!
Reading the comments above, I think the arguments can be boiled down to two groups - a) philosophical/geopolitics b) practical/functional catalogue aspects
when it comes to philosophical/geopolitics, i think in the context of Numista, it should not matter. For me Afghanistan Is part of South Asia, for others, it’s in the Middle East and yet some will declare it’s part of Central Asia. So the comments above on UK crown dependencies is equally subjective/moot in the context of the Numista catalogue
Now on the functional aspects, I personally have never had a problem searching for a country/issuer such as Ceylon, Aruba, Hyderabad etc. If I don’t locate it quickly in the search drop down, I simply use the free text search. i commend Xavier and his team for the continual improvement To the filters in the catalogue. i can enter random words and the search mostly returns highly relevant output.
So, a lot of the arguments on the geopolitics is nitpicking imo, but on the functional aspects, there can be room for incremental improvement
Now on the functional aspects, I personally have never had a problem searching for a country/issuer such as Ceylon, Aruba, Hyderabad etc. If I don’t locate it quickly in the search drop down, I simply use the free text search. i commend Xavier and his team for the continual improvement To the filters in the catalogue. i can enter random words and the search mostly returns highly relevant output.
Problem is, when you sort them in excel alphabetically., and in the collection. Example, my Aruba coins are at A country set, but at excel it will be at N. My Katanga is at K, but at excel at C. That's annoying.
Now on the functional aspects, I personally have never had a problem searching for a country/issuer such as Ceylon, Aruba, Hyderabad etc. If I don’t locate it quickly in the search drop down, I simply use the free text search. i commend Xavier and his team for the continual improvement To the filters in the catalogue. i can enter random words and the search mostly returns highly relevant output.
Problem is, when you sort them in excel alphabetically., and in the collection. Example, my Aruba coins are at A country set, but at excel it will be at N. My Katanga is at K, but at excel at C. That's annoying.
therefore I wrote “So, a lot of the arguments on the geopolitics is nitpicking imo, but on the functional aspects, there can be room for incremental improvement” :)
Now on the functional aspects, I personally have never had a problem searching for a country/issuer such as Ceylon, Aruba, Hyderabad etc. If I don’t locate it quickly in the search drop down, I simply use the free text search. i commend Xavier and his team for the continual improvement To the filters in the catalogue. i can enter random words and the search mostly returns highly relevant output.
Problem is, when you sort them in excel alphabetically., and in the collection. Example, my Aruba coins are at A country set, but at excel it will be at N. My Katanga is at K, but at excel at C. That's annoying.
therefore I wrote “So, a lot of the arguments on the geopolitics is nitpicking imo, but on the functional aspects, there can be room for incremental improvement” :)
Indeed. Just think about a newbie, that just found a bunch of coins from his grandfather. Not a clue about issuer/country distinction. He'll go “why is that site saying that this coin is from another country?”
Now on the functional aspects, I personally have never had a problem searching for a country/issuer such as Ceylon, Aruba, Hyderabad etc. If I don’t locate it quickly in the search drop down, I simply use the free text search. i commend Xavier and his team for the continual improvement To the filters in the catalogue. i can enter random words and the search mostly returns highly relevant output.
Problem is, when you sort them in excel alphabetically., and in the collection. Example, my Aruba coins are at A country set, but at excel it will be at N. My Katanga is at K, but at excel at C. That's annoying.
therefore I wrote “So, a lot of the arguments on the geopolitics is nitpicking imo, but on the functional aspects, there can be room for incremental improvement” :)
Indeed. Just think about a newbie, that just found a bunch of coins from his grandfather. Not a clue about issuer/country distinction. He'll go “why is that site saying that this coin is from another country?”
Please give a precise example of coin he'd find and how he would not be able to find it here :-)
Indeed. Just think about a newbie, that just found a bunch of coins from his grandfather. Not a clue about issuer/country distinction. He'll go “why is that site saying that this coin is from another country?”
Well, a newbie might also say, why does my coin not exist under so and so country. Could be that its not a coin at all 😅. The good news is that then they likely post on the forum to find out more. From there the likelihood increases that this newbie who inherited coins from a relative converts into a full fledge coin collector.
I think we can only account for all levels of collecting to a point. But that does not mean there can't be improvements over time!
