Taking advantage of the Caribbean Guilder's entry into force on March 31, 2025, for Sint Maarten and Curaçao, I believe the Netherlands section should be restructured, specifically for its Caribbean territories. It makes no sense to group all its territories (except Aruba) under the Netherlands Antilles group, when this was a specific entity that grouped several islands, including Aruba in its initial period. It also makes little sense for Aruba, Sint Maarten, and Curaçao not to be at the same level, since they have been identical entities within the Kingdom of the Netherlands since 2010 (the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles). My proposal is as follows:
NOW IN NUMISTA:
NEW PROPOSAL:
Netherlands
Dutch Republic (same as it is now)
Dutch States (same as it is now)
Netherlands (same as it is now)
Spanish Netherlands (same as it is now)
Dutch Caribbean territories (new entity grouping all Caribbean territories)
Aruba (introduced into this group)
Caribbean Netherlands (new entity grouping all the BES islands)
BES Islands
Bonaire (flag is missing)
Saba (flag is missing)
Saint Eustatius (flag is wrong?)
Curaçao (with old and new 2025 monetary systems)
Curaçao and Sint Maarten (for common banknotes of the new 2025 currency?)
Netherlands Antilles
Netherlands West Indies
Sint Maarten (with old and new 2025 monetary systems)
For the new currency to be used in Sint Maarten and Curaçao, the coins are different for each country, but the banknotes are common (similar to the Euro in Europe), so perhaps a joint issuer for Curaçao and Sint Maarten should be created to be able to integrate the banknotes of this new currency.
FLAGS:
Saba
Bonaire:
Saint Eustatius:
Dutch Caribbean territories, Caribbean Netherlands and BES Islands:
Wanting to push this, just because the banknotes of Curacao and Sint Maarten are getting out and need a place to be :D
I think the proposed list is fine, though I'm in no way an expert on the administrative devisions of the Netherlands.
And don't forget the ruler as King Willem-Alexander, of the House of Orange Nassau (Wikidata: Q154952) ;)
Thanks :)
I have a soft spot for origami paper cranes.
Read or watch about "Sadako Sasaki and the Thousand Paper Cranes".
Spread a little peace and happiness wherever you go :)
Status changed to Started(Jarcek, 25 Nis 2025, 15:46)
In the process, can we make sure we get the currency name right? It's Gulden, not “Guilder”. It would also make sense if the Sint Maarten Stuiver came before the Gulden.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Thanks. I've requested the corrected titles but it seems that the currency name hasn't changed yet for Curaçao. Also, can the face values be updated or do we need to create new ones?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
In the process, can we make sure we get the currency name right? It's Gulden, not “Guilder”. It would also make sense if the Sint Maarten Stuiver came before the Gulden.
According to Central Bank from Curaçao and Sint Marteen, (in their web page in English) the name is “Caribbean Guilder”. I received the request to change title of pages, but before processing it, I will like to know why we must change the name given by the issuing authority.
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
Status changed to Started(Jarcek, 13 May 2025, 16:03)
Please don't. Every other Gulden is called the Gulden on Numista. Why should this be any different?
Just cause the Bank named it so; “ Caribbean Guilder” instead of “Gulden”. Something like a currency reform, maybe?
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
Where did they name it so? On the coins? No. On the banknotes? No. This isn't a catalogue of websites. What matters is what's on the coins and notes. The same website uses “guilder” for the coins of the Netherlands Antilles, but we aren't renaming them (I hope). You'll have to ask those controlling the website why they are using the term "guilder" but it has nothing to do with the coins or notes.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Where did they name it so? On the coins? No. On the banknotes? No. This isn't a catalogue of websites. What matters is what's on the coins and notes. The same website uses “guilder” for the coins of the Netherlands Antilles, but we aren't renaming them (I hope). You'll have to ask those controlling the website why they are using the term "guilder" but it has nothing to do with the coins or notes.
From our guidelines for catalog: “The face value should be written using Arabic numerals and English spelling”.
Of course on coins and banknotes it doesn't show “Guilder”; they are in Dutch language. If you want to respect name written on coins and notes, then name is “Caribische Gulden”, since that is the name they stated. Either currency name must be ALL in Dutch ("Caribische Gulden"), or in English ("Caribbean Guilder"), but not mixed. (In my own opinion, it should be in the original language, as is what we can see on most coins and banknotes.)
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
Carabische Gulden might be best but, given that “Carabische” only appears on the notes, Gulden on it's own is also acceptable. Using "Caribbean" is just like using “new” instead of “nuevo” for various Latin American currencies. I would also question the notion that “Guilder” is the English "spelling". It was used in British Guiana but we don't apply it to any other Gulden (Dutch or German) and Gulden can be found in many English-language texts. Using “Guilder” would be like refeing to the Netherlands as “Holland”. Plenty of English-speakers do so but we know it's wrong.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
How will you respond if someone demands all the other Gulden are changed too? It troubles me that we rely more on an ephemeral website than the reality of what we are cataloguing. Of course, if Numista embraced accuracy and stopped applying foreign names to currencies, we wouldn't have to keep on having discussions like this. I know this is the result of an edict from the top but it doesn't do anything to improve Numista's standing.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
How will you respond if someone demands all the other Gulden are changed too? It troubles me that we rely more on an ephemeral website than the reality of what we are cataloguing. Of course, if Numista embraced accuracy and stopped applying foreign names to currencies, we wouldn't have to keep on having discussions like this. I know this is the result of an edict from the top but it doesn't do anything to improve Numista's standing.
English name is first, local name is in Dutch. Both are searchable.
Sorry, I simply do not see the problem.
The problem is that, like “Holland”, “Guilder” isn't the English name. It's just a name some people wrongly apply to the Gulden. Making the real name searchable is helpful but this diminishes Numista's accuracy and could lead to requests for other Gulden to be wrongly renamed.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
They're getting it right on the things that matter to this catalogue, i.e., the coins and notes. For the website, they're probably relying on Wikipedia, which calls all Dutch-related Gulden “Guilder”. Exactly the same argument could be made for the Dutch Gulden itself (look up the DNB website) but we ignore that because we know better. We shouldn't be afraid to say that our collective expertise in numismatics counts for something.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Since I took over as referee for the Netherlands (and other territories), I have noticed that the name that Numista uses followed what was printed on the banknotes (here I will only talk about the banknotes): Gulden and Florin are widely used in the registers, as they appear printed.
The spelling in English would make us put the entire catalog as "Guilder", which I don't think is the best thing to do. I don't see any problem in putting "Gulden" for the titles of the new banknotes; nor do I see anything so serious in "mixing languages" by putting "Caribbean Gulden".
I have a request here for a change in the name of the titles for the new banknotes, but I will not simply accept "what I think is best". I would like to see if we can reach a good conclusion here in this forum and that we can always think of the final goal: an environment that is easy to search and access for EVERY AND ANY collector (or even those who are curious about the subject).
Regards,
Vladimir
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
This approach would lead to Arabic/Chinese characters in the titles, making the catalogue unusable.
The way we have now makes both terms searchable.
Not if they are accompanied with an appropriate transliteration. The current approach (not, I hasten to add, devised by you) has lead to mass inaccuracy across large parts of the catalogue. I know Xavier isn't currently taking this matter seriously, which why such problems persist. He does eventually back down (witness the recent changes to the British Crown Dependencies) but it takes time. Meanwhile, as Vladimir rightly says, we need to create an easily accessible catalogue. We achieve that by making accuracy the fundamental guideline.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I'm not going to go into detail, once again, about the language used to describe the currency units. I think you all know what I think, but I must respect Numista's decisions.
What I do want to emphasize is that, regardless of the language chosen, the catalog should be consistent and homogeneous:
1. CURAÇAO:
Gulden in second line, guilder in third line;
Gulden (1828-date??)
Caribbean guilder (2025-date)
100 Cents = 1 Gulden; 1 Guilder = 100 Cents (first monetary unit or first the subdivision??)
2. CURAÇAO vs SINT MAARTEN:
For Curaçao (left image) 1 Guilder = 100 Cents; for Sint Maarten (right image) 1 Gulden = 100 Cents
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Maybe it is just perception issue. For me, accessible catalogue is searchable catalogue, and that is enforced by presence of both terms.
Searchability (if that's a word) is important, so including “guilder” in the search terms makes sense. The problem is that we present this name as “real” when in fact it's a misnomer. I know there are other misnomers present at the moment (cash instead of wén is probably the worst) but this one stands out, not least because of the inconsistency. Part of a catalogue's role is educational, so getting things right does matter. We also have to remember that many users will be looking at the English-language version of Numista because their own language isn't yet catered for and will be confused by the use of “guilder” as the primary name.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I understood what Jarcek said about the names Guilder and Gulden being "searchable" and "findable". As for that, ok! On the other hand, I understand that the catalog could be better standardized regarding the names of the monetary units and everything else.
The only different name we have is Guilder (only now, for the 2025 issues of Curaçao and Saint Martin). All the others are as Gulden (except Aruba, which obeys the name "Florin"). So, why not leave the recent issues as "Caribbean Gulden" as well? =)
I did a not so in-depth review of the monetary units of the Dutch Caribbean subgroups. Below, I will list what I found that would already be in accordance (in my opinion) and what could be adjusted (also in my opinion).
100 Cents = 1 Gulden (1828-1960) - For now, we do not have an end date for this monetary unit. Perhaps we can put the end date as 1960; since then, Curaçao adopted the monetary unit of the Netherlands Antilles.
100 Cents = 1 Caribbean Gulden (2025-date) - Here we could adopt "Caribbean Gulden" instead of Guilder.
20 Stuivers = 1 Gulden (1675-1795) - The subunit of the Gulden (Stuivers) has not yet been specified. This information is available in the World Coins catalogue (1701-1800).
This is perhaps the least consistent of the entries. First, the name of the issuer: if you search for the name in English (Saint Martin), you will not find this section. Saint Eustatius is spelled in English - why is Sint Maarten in Dutch? I suggest putting Saint Martin as the name of the issuer. As for the current currency unit, put it as in Curaçao (Caribbean Gulden).
This section is exclusive to banknotes, for now, due to the first joint issue for both territories. We suggest again that we use the word Gulden, as already mentioned above.
Finally, everything I have stated above is intended to better standardize the information of Dutch Caribbean issuers. It is just a suggestion and I would like it to be considered and we can see if other more detailed adjustments could be made. =)
Best regards,
Vladimir
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
This is perhaps the least consistent of the entries. First, the name of the issuer: if you search for the name in English (Saint Martin), you will not find this section. Saint Eustatius is spelled in English - why is Sint Maarten in Dutch? I suggest putting Saint Martin as the name of the issuer.
I have no comment in regards to the currencies, but for the issuer naming, perhaps this explains it:
Saint Martin is the entire island, Saint-Martin is the French side, and Sint Maarten is the Dutch side. And if my understanding is correct, Saint-Martin uses the Euro while Sint Maarten uses the… [insert prefered currency name here] (and both accept the USD as well). I think using Sint Maarten makes the most sense, as that name preserves the distinction between these two areas. However, I also think “Saint Martin” should still be a searchable term for this issuer. :)
I understood what Jarcek said about the names Guilder and Gulden being "searchable" and "findable". As for that, ok! On the other hand, I understand that the catalog could be better standardized regarding the names of the monetary units and everything else.
The only different name we have is Guilder (only now, for the 2025 issues of Curaçao and Saint Martin). All the others are as Gulden (except Aruba, which obeys the name "Florin"). So, why not leave the recent issues as "Caribbean Gulden" as well? =)
I did a not so in-depth review of the monetary units of the Dutch Caribbean subgroups. Below, I will list what I found that would already be in accordance (in my opinion) and what could be adjusted (also in my opinion).
100 Cents = 1 Gulden (1828-1960) - For now, we do not have an end date for this monetary unit. Perhaps we can put the end date as 1960; since then, Curaçao adopted the monetary unit of the Netherlands Antilles.
100 Cents = 1 Caribbean Gulden (2025-date) - Here we could adopt "Caribbean Gulden" instead of Guilder.
20 Stuivers = 1 Gulden (1675-1795) - The subunit of the Gulden (Stuivers) has not yet been specified. This information is available in the World Coins catalogue (1701-1800).
This is perhaps the least consistent of the entries. First, the name of the issuer: if you search for the name in English (Saint Martin), you will not find this section. Saint Eustatius is spelled in English - why is Sint Maarten in Dutch? I suggest putting Saint Martin as the name of the issuer. As for the current currency unit, put it as in Curaçao (Caribbean Gulden).
This section is exclusive to banknotes, for now, due to the first joint issue for both territories. We suggest again that we use the word Gulden, as already mentioned above.
Finally, everything I have stated above is intended to better standardize the information of Dutch Caribbean issuers. It is just a suggestion and I would like it to be considered and we can see if other more detailed adjustments could be made. =)
Best regards,
Vladimir
My concern on this matter is how clear may be the catalog; if we use “Caribbean Guilder” (as English name) or “Caribische Gulden” (as original language) there is not a problem; I would prefer to use the original name, as this is what is written on the notes. What I think that may be confusing, specially for the new collectors, or those that collect few Dutch items, is the mixing of terms, that may end on some people thinking it is a different currency.
Think of “Guilder”, “Gulden”, Caribbean Gulden", “Caribbean Guilder”, to who does not know about, may think these are different currencies, and seeing “Caribische Gulden” on the note, may complicate more the things. Also think on the zone also exists “Caribbean Dollar”; we know it is from other issuer, but being in the same region may make more confusing the situation.
In resumen: if on catalog is used the original name of currencies for most issuers, why this is different? We use Peso instead of Weight, ("Bolivian Weight"???), Escudo instead of Shield, Dinero, Diner and Dinar instead of Money, Colón instead of Columbus, Koruna and Krone instead of Crown, Lira, instead of Lire, Real instead of Royal, Rei instead of King… And of course some currency names that does not have translation, like Guaraní, Quetzal, Balboa, Lempira. I think some Asian and African currencies may have an “English” version, but I don't know them.
The currencies that use other alphabets are a separate issue; we need to translate them to use the Latin alphabet; we can't do other thing, cause few users may know the letters, but think of we even use some non English letters in the names: Réis, Colón, Guaraní, Dinarë, Sokolů, Haléře, Øre…
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
Saint Martin is the entire island, Saint-Martin is the French side, and Sint Maarten is the Dutch side. And if my understanding is correct, Saint-Martin uses the Euro while Sint Maarten uses the… [insert prefered currency name here] (and both accept the USD as well). I think using Sint Maarten makes the most sense, as that name preserves the distinction between these two areas. However, I also think “Saint Martin” should still be a searchable term for this issuer. :)
Thank you for your explanation! If there is this division between the French part and the Dutch part, then the different names make sense.
The name Saint Martin could be "searchable" for the Dutch part as well, as you mentioned.
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
In resumen: if on catalog is used the original name of currencies for most issuers, why this is different? We use Peso instead of Weight, ("Bolivian Weight"???), Escudo instead of Shield, Dinero, Diner and Dinar instead of Money, Colón instead of Columbus, Koruna and Krone instead of Crown, Lira, instead of Lire, Real instead of Royal, Rei instead of King… And of course some currency names that does not have translation, like Guaraní, Quetzal, Balboa, Lempira. I think some Asian and African currencies may have an “English” version, but I don't know them.
Hi, Daniel!
According to your concept, we should keep Gulden (or Florin) for all existing issuers; and for Curaçao/Sint Maarten, we should use Caribische Gulden, right?
What really bothers me is that we use "Guilder" only for this issuer, while all the others are Gulden. Either we use everything Gulden, or everything Guilder - in my opinion.
Searches for Gulden/Guilder are already guaranteed; but still, the lack of a standard catches my eye. Anyway, we could be pondering something unimportant here and going around in circles. =)
Thanks for putting forward your point of view (which you know I always take into consideration!).
Regards,
Vladimir.
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
This thread have cooled, no new opinions nor decisions, but we need to decide what to do.
Please think this new point of view to clear things:
I think most of banknotes/coins names are named as the currency name, in the original language, at least for the ones that use Latin script.
So far options are:
1) Caribische Gulden - The oficial name of the currency, given by the issuer; obviously with OK from ruler/government,
2) Caribbean Guilder - The English version, mentioned on the Bank of Curaçao and Sint Marteen web page, English version,
3) Caribbean Gulden - Proposed by some users.
First option follows most of the names given on Numista for coins/banknotes, using the currency name in original language. I strongly back this option.
Section option is the English version of the currency. Not my favorite, but Democracy rules; if it is choose, will be fairly fine for me.
Third option is a mix of English and Dutch. Here some examples we don't use:
“New Peso” or "Nuevo Weight" for Nuevo Peso currency from México or Uruguay,
“New Sol” or “Nuevo Sun” for Nuevo Sol from Perú,
“Reischpenny” or “Imperialpfennig” for German Reichspfennig,
“Nuevo Penny” or “New Penique” for New Penny of UK.
The use of “Caribbean Gulden” only would confuse users who don't know much of Caribbean/Netherlands currencies. They may understand it is another currency.
Hope this helps to make the correct decision and end this discussion very soon.
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
1) Caribische Gulden - The oficial name of the currency, given by the issuer; obviously with OK from ruler/government,
2) Caribbean Guilder - The English version, mentioned on the Bank of Curaçao and Sint Marteen web page, English version,
3) Caribbean Gulden - Proposed by some users.
Option 1 - Acceptable but doesn't appear on the coins (only Gulden).
Option 2 - Unacceptable on grounds of accuracy since “guilder” appears nowhere on the coins or notes.
Option 3 - A good compromise that covers both coins and notes. Each language version of Numista can then use it's own translation of Caribische.
It's worth mentioning that we do use “New Peso” for the Mexican currency but “Nuevo Peso” for the coins and notes. The same is the case for the French franc. If we opt for Caribische Gulden, we need to look at those too.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
1) Caribische Gulden - The oficial name of the currency, given by the issuer; obviously with OK from ruler/government,
2) Caribbean Guilder - The English version, mentioned on the Bank of Curaçao and Sint Marteen web page, English version,
3) Caribbean Gulden - Proposed by some users.
Option 1 - Acceptable but doesn't appear on the coins (only Gulden).
Option 2 - Unacceptable on grounds of accuracy since “guilder” appears nowhere on the coins or notes.
Option 3 - A good compromise that covers both coins and notes. Each language version of Numista can then use it's own translation of Caribische.
It's worth mentioning that we do use “New Peso” for the Mexican currency but “Nuevo Peso” for the coins and notes. The same is the case for the French franc. If we opt for Caribische Gulden, we need to look at those too.
About 1) “Gulden” only in coins, obviously is caused by limited space in coins, but is OK to use as coin name, same as we use “Cent” instead of “Gulden Cent” or "Dollar Cent"
About 3) I use your reasoning on 2) option: “Caribbean” appears nowhere on the coins and notes… neither is the official name of the currency.
So far, options 2 and 3 are unacceptable. In case of banknotes should be used “Caribische Gulden”, and in coins “Gulden” or “Cents”, depending what is present on them.
Thank you for noticing Mexico mistake, I will ask now to be fixed. If we want to translate currencies names then should be "New Weight", “New Sun”… 🤥 I don't know about French Franc, it is out of my collection range, but for sure should be looked at.
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
The reasoning against option 2 only applies to option 3 if we are sure that the full, official name is “Carabische Gulden”. The coins tell a different story and we musn't make any assumptions about why. I'm happy to go with option 1, I just think it would be wise to keep option 3 in play.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
It is also true that the vast majority of the records already existing here on Numista use "Gulden" when it appears as such in print; as well as "Florin" when it also appears as such in print. This time, we have the adjective "Caribische" before the word Gulden; which I believe is what is causing so much discomfort.
I tested three search methods and they all worked: "Caribische Gulden", "Caribbean Gulden" and "Caribbean Guilder"; that is, all of these terms are "searchable" and return the correct results.
Since it seems to me that a change (maybe big, maybe not) is being considered for the banknote registrations here at Numista, I think we can leave the name as it is and, if necessary, we can rethink in a broader way all the conflicting registrations that we may have here.
This work requires (a lot of) patience, because here we deal with different thoughts (after all, Numista is collaborative and democratic in its essence) and many registrations already made and changed over the years that will indeed need to be reviewed.
King Regards,
Vladimir.
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
Since it seems to me that a change (maybe big, maybe not) is being considered for the banknote registrations here at Numista, I think we can leave the name as it is and, if necessary, we can rethink in a broader way all the conflicting registrations that we may have here.
So you are proposing that we use the name Gulden for the coins and “Guilder” for the notes? That does seem a rather odd arrangement. For those of us who aren't referees and don't have access to that forum, can you tell us anything about these possibly big changes?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Since it seems to me that a change (maybe big, maybe not) is being considered for the banknote registrations here at Numista, I think we can leave the name as it is and, if necessary, we can rethink in a broader way all the conflicting registrations that we may have here.
So you are proposing that we use the name Gulden for the coins and “Guilder” for the notes? That does seem a rather odd arrangement. For those of us who aren't referees and don't have access to that forum, can you tell us anything about these possibly big changes?
Hello!
I am only referring to the banknotes at this point. I have no control over what happens in the coin catalog.
As for the changes, there is not much to say yet, as we do not have anything concrete yet.
Regards,
Vladimir
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
This discussion reminds me the old question: “What is more important, to win an arguing or to find the truth?”.
Let´s think of a few things:
Title of the thread is “Reorganize Netherlands issuers?”
This is already done, at least on Caribbean section (I know nearly nothing about details out of Americas region).
Aruba is placed within Dutch Caribbean, section that replaced Netherlands Antilles, and created one more issuer as Curaçao and Sint Maarten for banknotes, and kept them split for coins.
Now the discussion turned to name to be used on item pages; I think it is obvious: coins are “Gulden” and “Cents”, and banknotes are “Caribische Gulden”.
Why? Cause this is what is showing on them.
Please let´s agree that the most common used script is Latin at Numista, mainly cause most members have this “native script” and those who don't can handle it fairly good. For now, please let's keep out of subject the other scripts (This will be a problem to solve within the concerned referees and admins).
We use for titles “Nuevo(s) Peso(s)” on Mexican and Uruguayan items, not “New Peso”; “Peso Argentino”, “Peso Boliviano”, “Peso Convertible”, "Peso Dominicano", "Peso Uruguayo", not “Argentinian Peso”, “Bolivian Peso”, etc.
Again Why? cause is what is showing on banknotes and coins. It is easier to search using the data we see on items than try to figure translations. (We are flexible about languages that use Latin script with accents, some extra letters and variations).
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
Just a comment: anything written on collectibles is full searchable through the lettering and unabridged legend fields. So last argument above is useless imho.
And there is from my perspective no point to use non English denominations in the entries' title. A Gulden is called Guilder in English, that is in fact very easy to understand.
Currencies do have translations. I won't ever understand why a handful of members here are so aggressively making as if it was an heresy to say such a simple fact.
I spend often my holidays in England and never talk about “Pounds” when talking in french about local currency I use, but “Livres”.
Just a comment: anything written on collectibles is full searchable through the lettering and unabridged legend fields. So last argument above is useless imho.
And there is from my perspective no point to use non English denominations in the entries' title. A Gulden is called Guilder in English, that is in fact very easy to understand.
Currencies do have translations. I won't ever understand why a handful of members here are so aggressively making as if it was an heresy to say such a simple fact.
I spend often my holidays in England and never talk about “Pounds” when talking in french about local currency I use, but “Livres”.
We're writing a catalogue, not a travel guide. Given that Gulden is widely used in English, the claim that “A Gulden is called Guilder in English” is far from the whole story. It's like claiming “The Netherlands is called Holland in English”.
More worryingly, are you now going to change all Gulden to “Guilders”? I wonder if that will last longer than your attempt to replace the Finnish Penniä with “Pennies”?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Just a comment: anything written on collectibles is full searchable through the lettering and unabridged legend fields. So last argument above is useless imho.
And there is from my perspective no point to use non English denominations in the entries' title. A Gulden is called Guilder in English, that is in fact very easy to understand.
Currencies do have translations. I won't ever understand why a handful of members here are so aggressively making as if it was an heresy to say such a simple fact.
I spend often my holidays in England and never talk about “Pounds” when talking in french about local currency I use, but “Livres”.
I completely agree with ceh2019, what we use on our daily talk is not intended to be used on the catalog; in Spanish we talk about “Dólares” for Dollars, “Libras” for Pounds or Livres, “Rupias” for Rupees and “Francos” for Francs; but the point is we don't need to figure how a currency is called at certain place, but to make easier to users to search them. If a certain currency name is shown on a note or a coin, there is no point to put them a different title. At the end, it is possible (as guidelines) to add the nickname of them
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
There are already 8 languages on Numista, and hopefully more will come. I hope @Xavier will soon prioritize to have titles in all those languages, not just french and English.
My understanding of you mocking my point of view with so much acid in your tone @ceh2019 is that we don't envision same Numista.
I foresee a Numista being used by all people in their Mother tongue, with currency name making sense in it (accompanied with native names when needed).
You seems to envision tu use only the English version, not the others, and to use it in a globish way, meaning as a default lingua franca where it's ok to mix all languages of the world and to consider seriously “Caribische Gulden” as making sense in English (the actual language, not the globish shell)
There are already 8 languages on Numista, and hopefully more will come. I hope @Xavier will soon prioritize to have titles in all those languages, not just french and English.
My understanding of you mocking my point of view with so much acid in your tone @ceh2019 is that we don't envision same Numista.
I foresee a Numista being used by all people in their Mother tongue, with currency name making sense in it (accompanied with native names when needed).
You seems to envision tu use only the English version, not the others, and to use it in a globish way, meaning as a default lingua franca where it's ok to mix all languages of the world and to consider seriously “Caribische Gulden” as making sense in English (the actual language, not the globish shell)
I agree, we do have different visions for Numista. Mine is of an accurate catalogue, made accessible to all by the use of the correct names for things (including denominations and rulers). The interface languages are to be used for the descriptions of the pieces. To tell people who speak French that the British currency is called the “livre” is simply dishonest, just as it it dishonest to tell English speakers that the pre-revolutionary French currency was called the “pound”. A catalogue only makes sense fully when it is accurate. Until Xavier understands that, we will continue to call out your mistakes.
If you feel you are being “mocked”, you are sadly missing the point. You implemented a change to the Finnish catalogue that virtually no one supported and which was reversed over your head by Xavier within days. Not everyone reading the forum will know of this incident, hence it is important and entirely relevant to bring it up in the face of the possibility of all Gulden being replaced by “Guilders”. The point is that “translations” of names to the interface languages don't work in the face of opposition from the vast majority of the users.
To preempt your usual ripost, when a name is in a script different to that of the interface language, we should use an appropriate transliteration alongside the original form. I have nothing against other interface languages being introduced but we should get things set up properly for the languages we already have before we expand further. This will be far easier if we use the real names rather than having endless arguments about what is or isn't the correct “translation” into a particular language.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Apparently no limits to your bad manners and agonistic tone. Your sadness, your choice. And in addition, trying to antagonize me and Xavier publicly is so ridiculous.
“The interface languages are to be used for the descriptions of the pieces”. No. For now the titles are not translated but they will be, like we have translated rulers, entities, etc.
Your POV would lead to stop calling “Netherlands” Netherlands in English, but “Nederland”.
Apparently no limits to your bad manners and agonistic tone. Your sadness, your choice. And in addition, trying to antagonize me and Xavier publicly is so ridiculous.
“The interface languages are to be used for the descriptions of the pieces”. No. For now the titles are not translated but they will be, like we have translated rulers, entities, etc.
Your POV would lead to stop calling “Netherlands” Netherlands in English, but “Nederland”.
“Just because it's written on it” …
I must admit, I had to look up “agonistic”. It means “Polemic, combative, aimed at winning an argument.” Well, I'll happily accept the last part, since there's no point in having a discussion like this if you aren't trying to win the argument. Your tone is no different and that's perfectly fine.
My proposal is not a “point of view”. It's based on the fundamental concept of what a catalogue is. When it comes to the names of issuers, we need to list them alphabetically, hence we need them as used in the interface language. We also need them in their local form, since these are often on the coins and notes. Your translation approach would lead to us using “Holland”. I'm sure you aren't proposing that, but it's more widely used than “Guilder” ever was.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Your “Holland” comparison makes no sense. You built it out of nowhere like if you were talking with yourself. Perfect example of an agonistic bad faith.
Caribische Gulden approach leads to Nederland
Caribbean Guilder approach leads to Netherlands
Translation is not betrayal. Translation is not nickname. Translation is not universal.
Local language will always show up, we did release it as a feature 2 years ago now (for rulers and denominations notably).
Your “Holland” comparison makes no sense. You built it out of nowhere like if you were talking with yourself. Perfect example of an agonistic bad faith.
Caribische Gulden approach leads to Nederland
Caribbean Guilder approach leads to Netherlands
Translation is not betrayal. Translation is not nickname. Translation is not universal.
Local language will always show up, we did release it as a feature 2 years ago now (for rulers and denominations notably).
Two points. Holland is frequently encountered in the English language as the name for the country. If you weren't aware of that, look it up. I didn't invent it. Second, “Translation is not universal” is precisely the point. The real name is universal. That's why we should use it.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I unified the name of the currencies to gulden for the time being, and requested to equalize gulden=guilder in any search. (Second part might take few days to be applied.)
Yes Holland is frequently used, never said otherwise. My challenge is about you considering such nickname case being comparable to a translation case.
Not at all the same, it's a synecdoche. Often used in France too (Hollande instead of Pays-Bas).
Yes local name is by definition “universal” in each alphabet (potential spelling dissensus apart), it's still awful to me to have english/french/Portuguese website not using their language.
You stand for a globish Numista, I don't. For country names, ruler names, currency names, anytime something sounding more like reference language will have my preference, and I won't ever back your Caribische Gulden rationale.
Yes Holland is frequently used, never said otherwise. My challenge is about you considering such nickname case being comparable to a translation case.
Not at all the same, it's a synecdoche. Often used in France too (Hollande instead of Pays-Bas).
Yes local name is by definition “universal” in each alphabet (potential spelling dissensus apart), it's still awful to me to have english/french/Portuguese website not using their language.
You stand for a globish Numista, I don't. For country names, ruler names, currency names, anytime something sounding more like reference language will have my preference, and I won't ever back your Caribische Gulden rationale.
I'm glad we agree that Holland is widely used as the English name for the country. As is so often the case, multiple options appear when you try to translate. One of the major advantages of using the real name is that all such discussions disappear, saving the referees' and administrators' valuable time.
I propose an accurate Numista. Yes, I suppose we could use the term global to describe it, in the sense that the same names are used everywhere. In point of fact, my preference was for Caribbean Gulden, treating Caribbean as a descriptor rather than part of the name, since it doesn't appear on the coins. Caribische Gulden was proposed by adanieluy. I don't object to it, that's all.
I do wonder how far you invisage going with this? Will Deutsche Mark become German Mark / Marc Allemande? Will Silbergroschen become Silver Groat / Gros d'Argent? Will Juan Carlos become John Charles / Jean Charles? If not, where will you draw the line and how will you define that in the guidelines? At least tell us what you're planning. Yes, I'll oppose it, but at least you'll be able to say with justification that it wasn't done behind closed doors.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Status changed to Done(Jarcek, 21 Haz 2025, 21:28)
Holland is used to designate Netherlands yes; also Amsterdam is used to designate the country sometimes. But Holland is not translation of Nederland and I hope you understand the difference.
As for the rest, yes it's difficult to draw lines. Why Caribbean Gulden is OK but not German Mark if we follow your logic of Deutsche being just a descriptor ?
Well, we use sources, usage habits, editorial choices when multiple sources contradict themselves. No one ever called Juan Carlos John Charles in English, so that would be useless to use it on Numista. But the very Central Bank chose Caribbean Guilder as English name, it's a relevant source to me.
Maybe it hurts your brain but I'm happy with translations not being universal. Not having to suit your injonction for perfection leading to sanctifying “what is written on the coin”.
I believe we disagree om what means “written”. You seem to mean “engraved”, as if coins were dead objects. Whereas I look to the meaning of the concept, to make the most of it in current context, language etc. A book translated is still “written by” their original author.
Holland is used to designate Netherlands yes; also Amsterdam is used to designate the country sometimes. But Holland is not translation of Nederland and I hope you understand the difference.
As for the rest, yes it's difficult to draw lines. Why Caribbean Gulden is OK but not German Mark if we follow your logic of Deutsche being just a descriptor ?
Well, we use sources, usage habits, editorial choices when multiple sources contradict themselves. No one ever called Juan Carlos John Charles in English, so that would be useless to use it on Numista. But the very Central Bank chose Caribbean Guilder as English name, it's a relevant source to me.
Maybe it hurts your brain but I'm happy with translations not being universal. Not having to suit your injonction for perfection leading to sanctifying “what is written on the coin”.
I believe we disagree om what means “written”. You seem to mean “engraved”, as if coins were dead objects. Whereas I look to the meaning of the concept, to make the most of it in current context, language etc. A book translated is still “written by” their original author.
We seem to disagree on the concept of what a catalogue is. Coins and notes are the same no matter who is looking at them. In describing them, we must therefore be accurate. Introducing “translations” of names where none are required implies ignorance on the part of the collector. We should treat our users as intelligent people who can recognise in the title what they see on the piece.
I've never heard of Amsterdam being used to designate the Netherlands. If it is, it's just as bad as using “Guilder” to designate Gulden. I explained my logic for Caribbean Gulden. Deutsche Mark is different because it was used on all coins and notes. That said, I don't object to Caribische Gulden.
I'm glad to see that you recognise the difficulty of drawing the line. Do you really want to spend all that time weighing up different sources to decide which translation, or none, to use? My proposal is simpler. Don't draw a line, use the real name. I'm trying to make your job easier, not harder.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
