Please delete these listings and move members [solved]

Please remove this listing:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note203669.html

And move the members here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note210730.html

Thank you!

Please remove this listing:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note214015.html

And move the members here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note203580.html

Thank you!

Please remove this listing:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note203632.html

And move the members here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note223430.html

Thank you!

Please don't merge these notes. In each case, there are colour differences on the reverses. If required, I can provide clear descriptions of these differences.

The last two links have exactly the same photo. For the others there is a difference probably easier to notice with note in hand.

Quote: "ngdawa"​Please remove this listing:
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note203669.html
​
​And move the members here:
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note210730.html
​
​Thank you!

​For this members from the second link 203 should be moved to the first link.

Quote: "ngdawa"​Please remove this listing:
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note214015.html
​
​And move the members here:
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note203580.html
​
​Thank you!

​For this members from the second link 202 should be moved to the first link.
And for the last one I have asked for photo modifications and members to be moved.

Here are images showing why these notes should not be merged.
© Bank Note Museum
In each case, there are clearly distinct colour differences between the types. While we're looking at these notes, can I also request that "dots for the blind" be replaced by "dots for the sight impaired"? The dots are not raised and so are of no use to someone who is blind.

Or you just look at the prefix.

Quote: "ngdawa"​Or you just look at the prefix.

​I'm not sure if this is meant to be serious or not but, just in case it is, a prefix shouldn't be used to split entries. These notes are different on the basis of colour.

Quote: "ceh2019"

Quote: "ngdawa"​Or you just look at the prefix.

​​I'm not sure if this is meant to be serious or not but, just in case it is, a prefix shouldn't be used to split entries. These notes are different on the basis of colour.

​If the Central Bank of Turkey doesn't differing between the two, why should we?

I'm not sure exactly which note you are talking about, but needed info to differ the varieties are stated in the year list. The colour differencies can be added in the comments field with the signatures.

What's your reference for saying that the Central Bank of Turkey doesn't differentiate between these notes? Just to be clear, all three pairs you identified are distinct, as shown in the images I posted earlier.

We talked about this before and I thought it is clear that color differences means we split the banknotes.

Quote: "ceh2019"​What's your reference for saying that the Central Bank of Turkey doesn't differentiate between these notes?

​I don't know what you mean. My reference is the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey.

We don't have a listing for each signature change, so why is this different?

I just want the pages deleted since the listing already exist with complete – and correct – information. Detailed picture to show more differencies than serial prefixes and signatures, like slight colour changes (which can be difficult to see on heavily circulated notes), can be added in the comments field.

Quote: "allexis"​We talked about this before and I thought it is clear that color differences means we split the banknotes.

​I respect that, but I beg to differ.

I mean a link to a page on their website where they show only a single type of 10,000, 20,000 and 50,000 lira note. Colour change is far more important than a signature change. If we ignore colour changes, how far do we go? Only recognise it when 50% of the note changes colour?

Quote: "ceh2019"​I mean a link to a page on their website where they show only a single type of 10,000, 20,000 and 50,000 lira note. Colour change is far more important than a signature change. If we ignore colour changes, how far do we go? Only recognise it when 50% of the note changes colour?

Quote: "ngdawa"​​Detailed picture to show more differencies than serial prefixes and signatures, like slight colour changes (which can be difficult to see on heavily circulated notes), can be added in the comments field.

​I think we reached full circle here. I was simply askkng to get them deleted, not opinions. But all opinions are noted. Thank you all!

Does that mean you're withdrawing your requests and removing the duplicates in the combined entries? If not then I'm afraid this isn't resolved. Sorry.

ceh2019 and allexis are correct: when there is a change in the colour of the design, the page are to be listed separately.

And whether or not the Central Bank of Turkey recognizes the change, it looks like there was a clear change here, meaning these pages should remain separate.

Quote: "ceh2019"If we ignore colour changes, how far do we go? Only recognise it when 50% of the note changes colour?

​Right now, we go as far as shade changes. If a note goes from red to ever-so-slightly-darker-red, there is no need to give those notes separate pages because the change was not necessarily intentional. With colours, we are talking about printing and dyes, and replicating the exact same colour for years is a lot more difficult than it sounds. And it gets even more difficult to do so when different printers are used--they mix their colours individually, resulting in various different shades of approximately the same colour.

But if you go from a blue to a green (like P#199 and P#200), that is definitely an intentional (and very noticable) change.

Quote: "ceh2019"​Does that mean you're withdrawing your requests and removing the duplicates in the combined entries? If not then I'm afraid this isn't resolved. Sorry.

​I want the double pages deleted, yes. The give no extra information, and for some the main picture is the same. So instead of duplicate listings, I just want one. How to distinguish the two is clearly stated in each listing. Additional pictures to discribe smaller feature changes can of course be added. That's what the Comments field are for.

If the images are the same, that's because someone has put the wrong image in. That shouldn't be used as a reason to combine two distinct notes.

Quote: "ngdawa"​​I think we reached full circle here. I was simply askkng to get them deleted, not opinions. But all opinions are noted. Thank you all!

Well, the other two are correct, so these pages cannot be deleted. However, they will have to be editted to be more separate, and collections still need to be moved/year-lines deleted, which I can do.

Quote: "ceh2019"​If the images are the same, that's because someone has put the wrong image in. That shouldn't be used as a reason to combine two distinct notes.

​That means people cannot distinguish the two. The changes are too small to derves their own listings. I guess we will have to live with double entries since the Numista team apparently wants it that way.

Quote: "Sulfur"​​Well, the other two are correct, so these pages cannot be deleted. However, they will have to be editted to be more separate, and collections still need to be moved/year-lines deleted, which I can do.

​Are the images I posted sufficient for the comments in each case? If not, let me know and I'll have another go.

Quote: "ceh2019"​​Are the images I posted sufficient for the comments in each case? If not, let me know and I'll have another go.

​They are very sufficiant and very helpful, yes.

In addition to including those pictures in the comments section, specifying the colour difference in the title would be helpful.

Quote: "ceh2019"

Quote: "Sulfur"​​Well, the other two are correct, so these pages cannot be deleted. However, they will have to be editted to be more separate, and collections still need to be moved/year-lines deleted, which I can do.

​​Are the images I posted sufficient for the comments in each case? If not, let me know and I'll have another go.

​There's nothing wrong with the pictures, as I've said many times over. They could be a good complement.

Quote: "Sulfur"​In addition to including those pictures in the comments section, specifying the colour difference in the title would be helpful.

​Like what? "Blue detail", "Redis value", "dark and light green value"?. On circulated notes the paper colour is not possible to distinguish, so "yellow paper" is impossible. Especially if you have nothing to compare to.

These aren't easy to describe in a few words for a title. First, the full description for the comments to go with the images.
10,000 lira: P#199 - Dark blue ornament at left on reverse, P#200 - Green ornament at left on reverse.
20,000 lira: P#201 - Red and blue ornament at bottom right on reverse, P#202 - Purple ornament at bottom right on reverse.
50,000 lira: P#203 - Numeral in black and green at top right on reverse, P#204 - Numeral in green at top right on reverse.
For the short versions, how about:
10,000 lira: P#199 - Dark blue ornament , P#200 - Green ornament.
20,000 lira: P#201 - Red and blue ornament, P#202 - Purple ornament.
50,000 lira: P#203 - Black and green numeral, P#204 - Green numeral.

Quote: "ngdawa"​​Like what? "Blue detail", "Redis value", "dark and light green value"?. On circulated notes the paper colour is not possible to distinguish, so "yellow paper" is impossible. Especially if you have nothing to compare to.

​Whether or not it is difficult to tell from a circulated note is irrelevant--the change is there. And at the very least, if the members are not sure what they have, they can tell the difference by their series or prefix.

Imagine you have a modern Canadian cent which someone scratched the date off. The coin is not a ND coin--it did have a date--it is just the condition that prevents an exact identification. And that is not a problem with the coin's type (nor should it be reflected on the type's page)--it is a problem with the individual coin.

Quote: "ceh2019"​These aren't easy to describe in a few words for a title. First, the full description for the comments to go with the images.
​10,000 lira: P#199 - Dark blue ornament at left on reverse, P#200 - Green ornament at left on reverse.
​20,000 lira: P#201 - Red and blue ornament at bottom right on reverse, P#202 - Purple ornament at bottom right on reverse.
​50,000 lira: P#203 - Numeral in black and green at top right on reverse, P#204 - Numeral in green at top right on reverse.
​For the short versions, how about:
​10,000 lira: P#199 - Dark blue ornament , P#200 - Green ornament.
​20,000 lira: P#201 - Red and blue ornament, P#202 - Purple ornament.
​50,000 lira: P#203 - Black and green numeral, P#204 - Green numeral.

I think your short versions would be perfect (although, for the first one, you could technically omit the 'dark'--it is accurate, but the difference between blue/green should be obvious enough).

With the short version, it is possible the individual members will not see the difference at first; however, that is where the comments section will come in handy. By the titles, they will know there is a difference in the colours, and by the comments, they will know precisely where to look. And if they happened to click on the wrong type to start, there can also be a "See also" link to the other type right below the comments, meaning the correct page is one click away.

You're absolutely right about the "see also". Spurred on by comments in another forum, I'm currently going through the notes I'm referee for ensuring these are all present and correct. As to the "dark blue", I was hedging my bets a little there, as the ornament is so dark it could be black.

I still reckon one listing per note is enough. The details can be described in the comments field.

To be honest, I was very surprised if the objections of this small request.

Bjt hey, I've made my case clear, but since you guys still seem to want to keep both listings of the three notes, so eho am I to deny you that? But here's the deal:
You will have to fix clear and detailed pictures have been added to the main pictures, so when putting the two pictures side by side there cannot be a doubt in my mind which variety I have in hand‐ even when the note's condition is equal to toilet paper's. As it is now, they're just double listings, in my opinion.

You guys will also have to add information how the two varieties are different from each other. The pictures posted above are also good and can be added to its own listing.

When this is done (and I promise to not be childish and reject the requests just for the sake of making a point ), I will then start to clean up the mess on the three listings, and I will then fix the basic information. After that, members can start to be moved to the new listings.

Does this sound fair?

This sounds like you don't want to do it yourself because your modifications were rejected, so it is childish. I can't wait for the banknotes guidelines, then everybody will have to stick to the rules.

Quote: "allexis"​This sounds like you don't want to do it yourself because your modifications were rejected, so it is childish. I can't wait for the banknotes guidelines, then everybody will have to stick to the rules.

​Do be honest, I think it's unnecessary to split them, and I thought I've been very clear on that point, but since the majority want them to be split, I accept that. I don't have the notes myself, though, so I cannot provide pictures, which is why I'm asking you, who are so eager to make the split stay, to provide the pictures for me, so we make the listings as good as possible. If that is childish behaviour to you then I guess I'm childish. At least I'm not whining about it.

I don't know what you mean by "because my modifications were rejected". I don't really reject my own modifications, that would be stupid, lol!

I agree that we beed clearer rules of the listings. This has been requested by me, and many other referees, since day 1. We are still waiting to see this happen.

I don't think there's more to say here that hasn't already been said. Please focus on to make the banknote pages clear and neat. Even though we don't agree with each other, it's always great to see your commitment to the catalogue.

Stay safe now.

I was very pleased to find out that after you asked for better photos you rejected two of my modifications request. One for having the same pictures (although I uploaded higher resolution ones) and another because the reverse was too white for you and you decided to keep the original that looks like toilet paper... just wow!!! I am sorry for trying to help, I wont do it again!

Quote: "allexis"​I was very pleased to find out that after you asked for better photos you rejected two of my modifications request. One for having the same pictures (although I uploaded higher resolution ones)

I saw no reason to change pictures when it was the same note.

Quote: "allexis"and another because the reverse was too white for you and you decided to keep the original that looks like toilet paper... just wow!!! I am sorry for trying to help, I wont do it again!

The other one had a yellow obverse and a white reverse, which made me think you might've mixed the different picks. I also reckon, and this I have said since forever, we should prioritise member's own pictures before other website's - even if the website's are in better condition. Of course, it's another story the member's photos are so bad that you cannot make out the details. I don't reckon the banknote in questions was in that bad shape.

Quote: "allexis"I am sorry for trying to help, I wont do it again!

So, by rejecting a request from you you start whining? Come on, mate. I am doing all this for you, and still you're not pleased. That is a wow if anything. Grow up, man.

Well, the listings are ready and the one with power can start moving the members to the right listings.

Thank you!

I sent some requests to modify the titles and add pictures to the comment section.

I have also moved the collections on all pages except for the following:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note210730.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note203580.html

Do you recall what those (?) year-lines said before the information was deleted? I am not sure whether those year-lines were for the pages that were split (meaning I need to move the collections to a year-line on a different page) or were for years that made sense to the pages in question (meaning I need to move the collections to a year-line on the same page).

When it comes to year-lines that must be deleted, it is absolutely always prefered that no information is deleted beforehand--that information says where to move the collections, and if that information is deleted, there is a chance confusion like this can be created.

The deleted year lines are to be moved to the new listings. I just moved the info to the new listing and without thinking of it I deleted the comments.

Some of the new listings had more than obe year line with info that isn't recognised by the National Bank, so I'm not sure how accurage that is, but I kept it anyway, so I guess you just move themnto one of the date lines, and the members will edit the details themselves.

Thank you!

Alrighty. The remaining collections have been moved, with all duplicate year-lines deleted. That should officially sort out all these pages.

Thank you.

Awesome! Thank you!