I've only twice come across a coin or note with missing years (Thanks for that, referees! ) But both times they were closed off for more years to be added, so I had to either ask the referee, suppose it was another pice than that in the catalough or make a post on the forum.
So I'll like to suggest, that we remove the possiblity to lock year lists.
My main reason is, especialy if it's a country with a long processing time, the suggestion on the forum can/will get burried, before the referee sees it. But by keeping it in the modification requests lists, the referee or a master referee can act on it.
If anyone has a reason for why we absolutly have to have the ability to lock year lines; let us discuss it here :D
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 :)
Quote: "Sjoelund"If it's locked it is certainly to prevent "false" years to be introduced without proof of existence, which is normal in my opinion.
But, Sjølund, doesn't most, if not all countries has a referee, with books, knowledg and internet? Thinking most of the modern coins and banknotes.
And if you go into the link to another forum post, Ngdawa has never experinced it, in 3 years of being a referee, for many countries with no locked year list.
But thanks for your opinion, instead of just downvoting and moving along :D
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 :)
There has been and it still goes on, cleaning up of year lines, which have been falsely introduced in the numista catalog, so it did happen in the past, that users entered years without any control. Of course I prefer to think, that our referees are all perfect, but nobody is....
I like the lock option. You do not have to create a post in the forum to get it changed, you can send a pm to the referee of the country if it has one, or you can also send a pm to a master referee if their is not a referee.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
I like the option because it forces a public paper trail with posting of pictures of years maybe not in catalogs or a discussion if it's a just a minor variety or a major one worthy of a year line.
Quote: "Idolenz"I like the option because it forces a public paper trail with posting of pictures of years maybe not in catalogs or a discussion if it's a just a minor variety or a major one worthy of a year line.
I also don't like that this option is locked. Following example:
The Monaco entries seem to have no separate Essai coin entry, as long as it is the same metal as the standard coin (I think I even saw some Piedfort versions included too). Just some examples I fastly found:
But there are also a lot of entries where the Essai coin is missing. When I want to add it, I have to make a request on the forum every time. The forum would be flooded very fast if I wanted to do it. The important word is "would" because I think that's so stupid, I just don't want to do it. So in this case for me and maybe some others, it just stops the improvement and extension of the catalog.
That's not a great example as Essais are supposed to be separate from the original coin. (But let's not have that discussion now)
I think that there should be a barrier for certain changes to the catalog. It provides an opportunity to discuss whether or not the new line is even nessary. This also prevents careless or flippant users from making mistakes.
For example, if a referee mistakenly adds a yearline and a user adds it to their collection before it is fixed, now the referee has to fix it through the forum. Now the forum is just as spammed as before, if not worse.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
when a new year becomes available
when a new mint mark becomes available inside an existing year
when an easy to identify variant is identified inside an existing year (up to the referee to decide, not the demanding member!)
when a design or an alloy changes during an existing year
I can't think of others just now, maybe you can?
and ONLY with a corresponding high quality image documenting the addition. Many of my documentations are not qualifying for adding new year lines, but just to be mentioned in the comments.
Many existing double, triple or more lines for the same year, should be left out, but that's a huge, huge work.
Quote: "Some_Nerd"For example, if a referee mistakenly adds a yearline and a user adds it to their collection before it is fixed, now the referee has to fix it through the forum. Now the forum is just as spammed as before, if not worse.
Why can the year line even be added fully before? Why can't it be pending and when it gets rejected, you get some automatic message or something?
Because numista was born small and with few members, few coins and all of them added by well meaning collectors and maybe not very informed referees (maybe there were none in those early days?)? I can only imagine that it all probably started in a bit of chaos, and now numista with the time is getting better organized. Hence we now live with a past, which is what it is.
I given it a thought, but no, it should stay. There will always be coins where it is used incorrectly, but it prevents much more chaos especially in coins which have similar or even same design but are different coins due to metal for example.
Quote: "Jarcek"I given it a thought, but no, it should stay. There will always be coins where it is used incorrectly, but it prevents much more chaos especially in coins which have similar or even same design but are different coins due to metal for example.
Quote: "Jarcek"I given it a thought, but no, it should stay. There will always be coins where it is used incorrectly, but it prevents much more chaos especially in coins which have similar or even same design but are different coins due to metal for example.
I agree with Jarcek
Here is a good example of a wrong entry in numista
In the SCWC you find this:
Those "teeth" mentioned in SCWC has been transformed into lion's teeth in numista....
Here is the real thing as found by Mr. Paul Baker, specialist of Indian coins:
Now you hopefully understand why I want to see the control staying in place.
Ole
Forcing communication/discussion outside of the standard change request process is a bad idea. When a request is denied, any such discussions/trails of proof will get lost and people will just keep trying to contact the referee, not knowing why the year list is locked. In fact, I think the history of change requests should be made public, so one can check if a particular request has been previously submitted.
Status changed to Accepted (Sulfur, 9-Dec-2020, 08:43 PM)
And to this day, nothing has been done about it yet.
I consider that with the lines of years open, the referee or moderator of the corresponding country only has to analyze the evidence that users provide in each modification request, otherwise endless debates are opened in the forum and that, in many cases, they stay in nothing or become eternal (another example):
Coming from a master referee: when it comes to requests about coin pages, year-line additions are usually the most tedious to deal with.
Only the referee can unblock a year-list--not even master referees can do it--and so for one of us to go through the process of adding a year-line, it would be the exact same process as any other member. With that being said, I did make a suggestion that master referees can add new year-lines regardless of if the year-list has been verified (request made on November 16, 2020). I bumped it a few days ago, linking this thread to it.
I would be weary about completely removing this feature--as a master referee, I have rejected many, many requests about adding new year-lines, and so opening the years to everyone could be a pain for the referees (especially because some countries are more notorious for people wanting to add erroneous year-lines, like Belgium). But if master referees could get around it, I know I could at least easily deal with all these requests.
Quote: "Sulfur"Coming from a master referee: when it comes to requests about coin pages, year-line additions are usually the most tedious to deal with.
Only the referee can unblock a year-list--not even master referees can do it--and so for one of us to go through the process of adding a year-line, it would be the exact same process as any other member. With that being said, I did make a suggestion that master referees can add new year-lines regardless of if the year-list has been verified (request made on November 16, 2020). I bumped it a few days ago, linking this thread to it.
I would be weary about completely removing this feature--as a master referee, I have rejected many, many requests about adding new year-lines, and so opening the years to everyone could be a pain for the referees (especially because some countries are more notorious for people wanting to add erroneous year-lines, like Belgium). But if master referees could get around it, I know I could at least easily deal with all these requests.
Sulfur is right. There has to be a check on the year lines.
Since this idea was suggested, we improved the communication around modification requests. It's now possible to provide pictures in the source for modification requests and it's possible to ask questions and respond. So I don't see any reason to have addition of new year lines going through the forum rather via modification requests. Hence I removed the lock mechanism for complete year list.
It's still possible for referees to mark a year list as complete for the few referees who rely on it to track their validations.
Status changed to Implemented(Xavier, 10 Jan 2025, 16:27)
Since this idea was suggested, we improved the communication around modification requests. It's now possible to provide pictures in the source for modification requests and it's possible to ask questions and respond. So I don't see any reason to have addition of new year lines going through the forum rather via modification requests. Hence I removed the lock mechanism for complete year list.
It's still possible for referees to mark a year list as complete for the few referees who rely on it to track their validations.
For me this is perfect!! Many thanks…
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
) But both times they were closed off for more years to be added, so I had to either ask the referee, suppose it was another pice than that in the catalough or make a post on the forum.
