My goal for today was to figure out the three countries needing 'medieval' issuers. Well, there may be more, but if so: I did not get to them yet. There were only three I recognized, with two already being on Numista.
Sri Lanka is... interesting. Here is what I am thinking:
Lanka (ancient)
Sri Lanka
----- Kandy, Kingdom of
----- Lanka (medieval)
---------- Jaffna, Kingdom of
---------- Lanka (medieval)
----- Sri Lanka
To start: medieval Lanka. In general, this seems good; however, it appears the Kingdom of Jaffna issued a few coins. Unlike medieval Lanka (the entire island), this was only on the northern side of the island, so geographically speaking, I think a split here makes sense. Here is an example: https://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=30725
With that being said, we previously had an issuer called the Kingdom of Kandy, and we re-named it to medieval Lanka to encompass more coins. But I would like to propose a split here as well. Kandy issued some weird-looking local coins (but still shaped and designed), and we have one on Numista: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces108329.html
But these pieces circulated well past any medieval period and into the collonial period of the island. So considering the years and these pieces being local, I think splitting these two would be justified.
Then there is ancient Lanka. They actually had quite a few series of coins. Here is a nice site that lists them all: https://coins.lakdiva.org/main.html.
And... oh, no Ceylon. We do not split Myanmar/Burma, and with our ruling authorities, maybe it is time we combine Sri Lanka and Ceylon? I'd vote for it, but I imagine I may be in a minority here. Of course, this thread is all about Sri Lanka. We can discuss that here.
To explain some of my motivations of name-switching:
Changing medieval Lanka to Kandy Kingdom: the URLs will be most accurate if we do it this way.
Changing Ceylon to Sri Lanka: if these get merged, something will have to go. Ceylon has more coins and way more ruling authorities, so I think re-naming Ceylon to Sri Lanka will be easiest.
Thoughts or opinions on all this?
And... thank you for your time!
Η κατάσταση άλλαξε σε Ξεκινημένο.(stratocaster, 25 Μάι 2021, 19:59)
Since it might get lost in this thread, let me explain here also why the merging of Ceylon and Sri Lanka is such a bad idea. The result is that we have the wrong currencies (two rupees divided in 1972 when there was no currency change), the wrong ruling authorities (ignoring the republic which existed between 1972 and 1978) and the wrong country name for all notes and coins issued prior to 1972.
I can see absolutely no benefit from this merger and have yet to have those responsible for it provide any explanation as to why it was done or what they imagine to be the benefit. The only statement in favour is that it puts very similar notes from Ceylon and Sri Lanka in the same section but, given the confusion between these notes, the answer is to ensure links within each page to those similar notes bearing the other name for the country.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I think it would be better to keep the conversation on this thread--this one is specifically about Sri Lanka, after all.
In my opinion, the errors in the currencies and the ruling authorities (missing the "Republic") are irrelevant here. Sri Lanka and Ceylon were merged, and that means no new information was added or deleted--the existing information was only combined. Now that everything has been merged, we can work on modifying the information so everything is accurate, including the changes you mentioned in the currency and ruling authority fields.
By default, when ruling authorities are displayed, the "Header" is omitted (in China's case, the "Header" is the dynasty). This can be manually changed, as demonstated in the above page that displays the exact dynasty within the ruling authority field.
The ruling authority could theoretically be changed to show the following: "George IV (1820-1830, Ceylon)".
That modification is on my list of things to request (this merger has only happened one day ago though, so I have not requested it yet). With that change then displaying the name "Ceylon" on every relevant page, do you think that would be at least somewhat helpful?
Sulfur - Thank you for recognising that a problem does exist. However, you're wrong to claim that the merger hasn't deleted information. If it hadn't, all the Ceylonese coins would still be listed under Ceylon. At the moment, they're all wrongly listed under Sri Lanka.
If I understand your proposal correctly, this change to the ruling authorities would broadly fix the problem when viewing sorted by ruling authority, resulting in sections looking like this:
Ceylon - George VI
Ceylon - Elizabeth II
Sri Lanka - Republic
Sri Lanka - Democratic Socialist Republic
However, it would do nothing to fix the problem when viewing sorted by face value (which really does need to be renamed currency).
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Well, considering the whole nature of a merger, that means we go from multiple to one--of course Ceylon no longer exists as a separate issuer, but it now exists as a ruling authority under Sri Lanka (so it still exists).
My proposal would not actually change the appearance of the ruling authority list though, and it will also not effect the currency list either. When clicking the issuer Sri Lanka, what you see now will remain the same (disregarding new ruling authorities that must be added, like the "Republic" one).
My proposal effects only the individual pages where, if you click any page listed under a Ceylon ruling authority, "Ceylon" will appear on the individual pages. Otherwise saying, this page would have a ruling authority listed as "Elizabeth II (1952-1972, Ceylon)" whereas this page would have a ruling authority listed as "Democratic Socialist Republic (1972-date, Sri Lanka)".
(Obviously, on that last page, listing "Sri Lanka" twice is redundant, but that is how it would likely appear at first. In my suggestion, I will also request a change in the coding of this feature to omit this redundancy--not just with Sri Lanka, but with any other country this redundancy might effect. This would invlove adding a condition on what is displayed, which should not be too difficult to implement.)
So it doesn't actually help at all then? You have to think about the users and not just focus on what's convenient for those managing the database. Plenty of people will click on the coins or banknotes link at the top of the home page and look for Ceylon. Just because you know where it's hidden doesn't mean they will. I know searching for Ceylon turns up Sri Lanka (although without any explanation) but that shouldn't be necessary for a country that existed until less than fifty years ago. I still cannot see any justification for this change. How does this make Numista better?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Απόσπασμα: "ceh2019"So it doesn't actually help at all then?
I am not sure how you got that from everything I said.
When you originally responded to what I said, you gave the following list that you said would somewhat help:
Ceylon - George VI
Ceylon - Elizabeth II
Sri Lanka - Republic
However, that would not actually help anything because Ceylon and Sri Lanka work as headers, and including the individual names is redundant. Instead, we currently have what follows, which works in the exact same way as you proposed list, only with a grouping of identical terms:
Ceylon
----- Geogre VI
----- Elizabeth II
Sri Lanka
----- Republic
For what I am talking about, perhaps a visual will help (and if not, then I guess there is nothing more I can say about this):
Απόσπασμα: "ceh2019"I know searching for Ceylon turns up Sri Lanka (although without any explanation) [...]
A while ago, I made a suggestion to display the name being searched. That suggestion is still pending, but if it is accepted, it will not be this way forever.
Απόσπασμα: "ceh2019"How does this make Numista better?
In my opinion, it makes Numista's country list more accurate; however, I have explained my opinion many times before (in regards to other countries), so I will not reiterate it here--you and I simply do not agree.
I know you are not happy with these changes--it is impossible to make everyone happy, after all--which is why I am trying my best to find compromises that make these changes easier to deal with. Of course, it takes time to implement new features, so not everything can be done at the exact same time.
With the changes I am proposing, "Ceylon" will appear in parenthesis if searched (looking like "Sri Lanka (Ceylon)"), and "Ceylon" will also appear on every single page with a Ceylonese ruling authority selected, in the "Features" box below the country. "Ceylon" also currently appears in the ruling authority list, as a header for various ruling authorities--I am proposing no changes there because I think this works well the way it is.
But if you really do not think any of this is in any way helpful, please feel free to propse your own suggestions that you think will help. I would suggest making those suggestions in a separate thread though--they will likely not only effect Sri Lanka/Ceylon, so posting them under the correct ticket would ensure they do not get lost in this country creation thread.
Απόσπασμα: "Sulfur"In my opinion, it makes Numista's country list more accurate; however, I have explained my opinion many times before (in regards to other countries), so I will not reiterate it here--you and I simply do not agree.
OK, so your justification is that it makes Numista's country list more accurate. How is it "more accurate" to have a coin issued by Ceylon shown as being issued by Sri Lanka? How is it "more accurate" to have the country of Ceylon removed from the country list? The image you show is only visible when the user has reached the coin but this change makes it much more difficult for them to get there. Even when they do, this would still imply that the coin was issued by a country which didn't exist until 160 years later.
I'm glad to see that you take my point on the search function and this improvement needs rolling out accross the board where other country names have been hidden.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I think it is more accurate because Ceylon and Sri Lanka are the same country--they had a name change, yes, but before and after the change, they were still the same country. And if "both places" are actually the same county, I do not see why we should treat them as two different countries.
Απόσπασμα: "ceh2019"Since it might get lost in this thread, let me explain here also why the merging of Ceylon and Sri Lanka is such a bad idea. The result is that we have the wrong currencies (two rupees divided in 1972 when there was no currency change), the wrong ruling authorities (ignoring the republic which existed between 1972 and 1978) and the wrong country name for all notes and coins issued prior to 1972.
I can see absolutely no benefit from this merger and have yet to have those responsible for it provide any explanation as to why it was done or what they imagine to be the benefit. The only statement in favour is that it puts very similar notes from Ceylon and Sri Lanka in the same section but, given the confusion between these notes, the answer is to ensure links within each page to those similar notes bearing the other name for the country.
After just two messages the decision was taken between two referees. I'm against that decision, so now we're two gainst two!
Απόσπασμα: "ceh2019"So it doesn't actually help at all then? You have to think about the users and not just focus on what's convenient for those managing the database. Plenty of people will click on the coins or banknotes link at the top of the home page and look for Ceylon. Just because you know where it's hidden doesn't mean they will. I know searching for Ceylon turns up Sri Lanka (although without any explanation) but that shouldn't be necessary for a country that existed until less than fifty years ago. I still cannot see any justification for this change. How does this make Numista better?
Hi ceh2019,
it's not a question of making numista better, but just to change it!!!
Isn't sulfur starting to overevaluate his role and responsibilities as a referee? He cannot and SHOULD NOT do things on his own, there is a name for that, which is not very nice.
Απόσπασμα: "Sjoelund"Isn't sulfur starting to overevaluate their role and responsibilities as a referee?
I simply made a suggestion for a better organization of Sri Lanka, based off our current guidelines. If you disagree with my suggestion, that is completely fine, but my role as a referee has absolutely nothing to do this. Any member is free to make whatever suggestion they want.
Απόσπασμα: "Sulfur"Any member is free to make whatever suggestion they want.
I think the problem here is that only a few members are free to make the actual change, seemingly without caring what other members think about that. All these mergers have been initiated without thinking about how they affect the members of Numista, and their collections. There have been no announcements up front and there seems to be no willingness to re-evaluate the decisions to merge. How I store my collection is based on how Numista was structured before the merging started. I can’t imagine I’m the only one who did that…
Απόσπασμα: "Sulfur"Any member is free to make whatever suggestion they want.
I think the problem here is that only a few members are free to make the actual change, seemingly without caring what other members think about that. All these mergers have been initiated without thinking about how they affect the members of Numista, and their collections. There have been no announcements up front and there seems to be no willingness to re-evaluate the decisions to merge. How I store my collection is based on how Numista was structured before the merging started. I can’t imagine I’m the only one who did that…
My collection is based on the former version of numista, which was a copy/paste from SCWC, which suits me fine, and it still does! So I completely agree with smvdbrink. Whatever us normal members say are not taken into consideration and nothing is ever voted upon, which is completely understandable, as there is no information up front. Normal members are just run over by decisions taken by the "doers".
Απόσπασμα: "smvdbrink"I think the problem here is that only a few members are free to make the actual change, seemingly without caring what other members think about that.
I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing...
These country-list changes take place on an administration-level (something I am not a part of and have no influence over). However, without a few people having the final say on anything, nothing would change. And simply sticking to the status quo because it is familiar is not a good way to proceed.
Krause has plenty of errors and oddities--things which, at one point, Numista just copied. But something to consider is that, unlike Numista, Krause is a printed catalogue. In a printed catalogue, you cannot simply "search" for Ceylon and find Sri Lanka, so giving those two their own listings--even though they are the same country--is efficient in the printed format. But with Numista being digital, we can be more accurate as to what defines a new country while, at the same time, making everything as easily searchable as before (of course, even more implementations are needed to maximize that aspect, but there are plenty of threads already discussing that).
But of course, because Krause is one of the most popular references, there are some people who think Numista should just copy Krause, errors and all. I do not understand that mindset, but... that's what some people want.
If you refer to errors in the KM country names, then I never felt any wish to change them, since they are easily understandable and the question is really if they can be called errors.
Απόσπασμα: "BCNumismatics"Ceylon should be separate from Sri Lanka.
Same thing applies to British Honduras in relation to Belize & British Guiana in relation to Guyana as well.
Aidan.
100% agreeing on that, Straits Settlements should also go on existing, German East Africa as well etc etc!
