Does anyone know why the 4 circulating coins of French Oceania have moved to the Issuer French Polynesia instead of continuing in the Issuer of French Oceania as are the rest of the non-circulating coins (Pattern coins)?
I think it is a mistake and these 4 coins (50 centimes to 5 Francs, KM 1 to KM 4, from 1949 to 1952) should be in the issuer French Oceania, what do you think?
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
I have tried to make the modification request for these 4 currencies and I could not find the "French Oceania" issuer in the drop down list of "Issuing authority".
Are you planning to remove this issuer and put all its coins (as has already been done with these 4 circulating coins) directly under the "French Polynesia" issuer? If so, for me it would be a new error in the way of managing the Catalog Countries / issuers.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Hello!
This is the same thing they have done for Sri Lanka-Ceylon and Belize-British Honduras. They are all merged for some reason. Belize and Br. Honduras even had different flags as countries and they decided to merge the issuers.
Quote: "gabz"Hello!
This is the same thing they have done for Sri Lanka-Ceylon and Belize-British Honduras. They are all merged for some reason. Belize and Br. Honduras even had different flags as countries and they decided to merge the issuers.
Don't forget about British Guiana & Guyana as well.
As will I, change something into something just for the "fun" of it seems completely wrong, in my opinion! My collection will stay in accordance with the countries in SCWC, and not some "intellectual" garbage making no sense at all , to me
I also do not understand certain decisions to gather issuers that, in most Coin Catalogs, are separated. Practically all the opinions of Numista users are contrary to the decisions that are being taken about joining issues, so why are these opinions not taken into account?
In response to requests to keep certain issuers separate, I ask Numista administrators to reconsider the decisions that are being made, or at least to conduct a survey to take into account the decision of the majority of users.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Quote: "oynbcn"I also do not understand certain decisions to gather issuers that, in most Coin Catalogs, are separated. Practically all the opinions of Numista users are contrary to the decisions that are being taken about joining issues, so why are these opinions not taken into account?
In response to requests to keep certain issuers separate, I ask Numista administrators to reconsider the decisions that are being made, or at least to conduct a survey to take into account the decision of the majority of users.
I totally agree with this!
I feel that certain things that have been suggested have been totally ignored - & it makes me pretty angry!
Of course the majority of the world collectors wants to sort the collection in the more splitted and with more information possible. Of course lots of us want to have at least one coin from any issuer possible, we always want more. Thats the spirit of collecting.
The desires of the comunity of users/collectors are more important than just the aesthetic of the issuers page.
Quote: "oynbcn"Does anyone know why the 4 circulating coins of French Oceania have moved to the Issuer French Polynesia instead of continuing in the Issuer of French Oceania as are the rest of the non-circulating coins (Pattern coins)?
Hello
The coins were moved on 20 November when the referee approved requests from a contributor. I don't know the reason behind this, only they can answer why they were moved.
As you will see from one of the threads, at the time when this was decided, I was also of the opinion that these should be separate, and I was in a minority. The decision was to adopt the unification of these issuers under the names they used when they issued their most recent currency. These are the same countries (same territory, same people), just changing their name. Of course, there were good arguments on the other side as well, but reflecting back, this was a fair decision based on reasonable arguments and I am happy now to see that the catalogue still works very well for me after these merges.
In the most recent merge, for example, Belize, there were some coins from 1810s listed under British Honduras. This ignored the fact that British Honduras was only founded 30 years later. Now coins are listed under their correct issuing authorities and country names on the territory of modern-day Belize.
Using Krause as a guide is unfortunately also problematic, because Krause also ignores some significant name changes. A notable example being Siam / Thailand.
The catalogue admins are regularly reviewing countries that need to be merged or split and check each specific case against the guidelines to decide if an action is necessary. The merge of French Oceania / Polynesia was agreed on 8 June, but it hasn't been implemented yet. It will be implemented at some point soon hopefully, and we aim to achieve consistency in this regard for all countries. However, we do have a long backlog of changes at the moment unfortunately, so it will take a while.
I am sorry that some members are not happy with the current situation, but there is no plan at the moment to reconsider this matter. However, it may be possible to make things better by increasing the visibility of the name changes for example, as was suggested here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic109527.html
And if you have other ideas for improvements you are welcome to post them.
Quote: "stratocaster"I am sorry that some members are not happy with the current situation, but there is no plan at the moment to reconsider this matter. However, it may be possible to make things better by increasing the visibility of the name changes for example, as was suggested here:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic109527.html
And if you have other ideas for improvements you are welcome to post them.
My advice is that you start making plans to reconsider this matter that involve all members and not just the admins. The entire accuracy of Numista as a catalogue is being undermined, not because it doesn't match KM or Pick but because it doesn't match reality. We can't rewrite history to claim that Belize existed decades before it did. We can organize our catalogue to reflect groups of geographically similar states but denying the existence of historical names is simply inaccurate.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
In my opinion (and it is just that, my opinion) a Coin Catalog should be accurate and practical. Without the need to turn to others as an example, I can't quite understand why, having the terms country / issuer, entities cannot be separated to make the catalog more clear and understandable.
For example, on Congo Free State & Belgian Congo coins (taking into account that you know a bit of history and that you know that these colonies became a certain country called...), when you search for Rep Dem of Congo, you get this:
The first two coins belong to the Congo Free State and the Belgian Congo, but those names do not appear anywhere, to see them you must enter each of the coins and see the Historic Period (king)
I think that is not practical for almost anyone. And here we would still have to add Zaire, whose coins are lost among those of the rest of historical periods and different monetary systems. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
oynbcn is so right that it's obvious that somebody in numista has lost some or maybe a lot (eventually all) of his grey cells. To make things complicated just to show YOU have had a word to say is only the way for French politicians from ENA (the national school for administrators), NO, please keep it simple and stupid (KISS).
So... all non-circulating coins of "French Oceania" have been moved to "French Polynesia", with the correct ruling authority listed. There was not actually a selectable country for "French Oceania", so had anyone editted those pages without changing the issuer, the coins would have been moved to a country-less issuer. I have stumbled upon a few coins like that before, but always by accident, so hopefully none of the coins from the previous French Oceania issuer ended up like that.
Although, if anyone recognizes a type that is missing, it could still be somewhere.
As well, it appears there are some pages with corrupted pictures, so I made a bug report to try to fix those ones. They should hopefully be back up... well, eventually (I have no idea how long that will take).
With that being said, I imagine a lot of people will not be pleased with this outcome because the majority in this thread seem to want the coins listed under a "French Oceania" issuer. However, there is no "French Oceania" issuer to list them under, and this thread is about the modification of a coin page (it is not about creating or modifying issuers). The basis of this thread was that the coins of French Oceania were appearing in two different places, and that has been solved, so I will close this thread. However, if anyone would like to continue discussing the validity of a French Oceania issuer, feel free to do so (whether here or in a relevant thread, if one doesn't already exist).
Status changed to Done(Sulfur, 15 Feb 2022, 00:58)
The irony of all is that they make "Hrvatska" searchable to find "Croatia", but in the same moment they hide all countries/issuer that ever existed pre-1950's. Well done! That's takes some skills ...
It comes around to say, that what's written on the coins themselves, is sometimes important and sometimes not. The logic of the "cloud" thinkers and executers in numista. The members have no importance, we are not really listened to. Is there a verb like "Putinized"?
Quote: "Sjoelund"It comes around to say, that what's written on the coins themselves, is sometimes important and sometimes not. The logic of the "cloud" thinkers and executers in numista. The members have no importance, we are not really listened to.
Because of the unhappy events happening since a few days I thought, I would try to find what countries could be found under Russia and/or Soviet Union and gues what?
No Baltic States, no Finland, no Ukraine etc, so strange enough that part of the world is OK in NUmista, compared to Poland, ceylon etc.
