Papua new Guinea: 2 toea with unnecessary mint names in the year lines [solved]

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3362.html



In the mint section it's clearly stated, that two mints were used, one without mint mark and one with. So there's no need to repeat the information in the year lines, it's implicit.

For the 1 toea https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3361.html same thing
For the 5 toea https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3379.html same thing
For the 10 toea https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3359.html same thing
For the 20 toea https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces5271.html same thing
For the 50 toea https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces12519.html but for the rest of commemoratives there are no problems

For the 1 kina it's OK since there are two mints without mint marks! https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3360.html

For the different 2 kina coins some are completely without indication of mint and one has the mint indicated correctly.

For the different 5 kina coins the mint mark FM is indicated on the year line, but there is no mint section? Bizarre.

Of course I can make all the CR (Change Requests), but I like to communicate before starting on that rather huge job, to see if somebody disagrees with my opinion.

All changes requested, thank you. There will be many more like that.

Quote: "Jarcek"​There will be many more like that.

Then surely a job for Mr. Robot?

Quote: "ZacUK"​

Quote: "Jarcek"​There will be many more like that.

​Then surely a job for Mr. Robot?

​It is not AI, I guess this could not be automated so easily.

I agree with Jarcek, you have to be human to detect these illogics, since they don't manifest themselfes in the same way all the time.

Quote: "Sjoelund"​​In the mint section it's clearly stated, that two mints were used, one without mint mark and one with. So there's no need to repeat the information in the year lines, it's implicit.
​
​Of course I can make all the CR (Change Requests), but I like to communicate before starting on that rather huge job, to see if somebody disagrees with my opinion.

​The statement "it's implicit" overstates what the page says.

The mint section of the page does say that two mints were used. But it doesn't say that the mint is known for all years. While that seems to be true for the Papua New Guinea it isn't true for all coin entries. Some coin pages don't have lines for all of the mints used.

How is a viewer of the catalog to know which on which pages a blank field indicates a mint line entry with no mint letters and on which pages a blank field indicates the mint information isn't fully know or hasn't been fully entered into Numista?

Quote: "bjherbison"​

Quote: "Sjoelund"​​In the mint section it's clearly stated, that two mints were used, one without mint mark and one with. So there's no need to repeat the information in the year lines, it's implicit.
​​
​​Of course I can make all the CR (Change Requests), but I like to communicate before starting on that rather huge job, to see if somebody disagrees with my opinion.
​
​

​​The statement "it's implicit" overstates what the page says.
​
​The mint section of the page does say that two mints were used. But it doesn't say that the mint is known for all years. While that seems to be true for the Papua New Guinea it isn't true for all coin entries. Some coin pages don't have lines for all of the mints used.
​
​How is a viewer of the catalog to know which on which pages a blank field indicates a mint line entry with no mint letters and on which pages a blank field indicates the mint information isn't fully know or hasn't been fully entered into Numista?
​

​You're right, of course, with more than one blank code, we're lost.