Modifications Germany 1,2 and 5 Euro Cent [solved]

Hello Numista,

I recently received an entire box with hundreds of German 1, 2 and 5 euro cents from my father who

had collected them for me over the course of a year.

Now that I was adding those that I still needed I noticed several inconsistencies on their pages that

quite annoy myself and perhaps others. 

I noticed the following:

1. For all the coins mentioned the order of Circulation → In Sets Only → Proof suddenly changes, perhaps, because they were added differently by a different person. Anyhow I'd like to see that fixed.

1 euro cent: From 2019 A till 2021 J the order goes In Sets Only → Proof → Circulation, please can this be changed to Circulation → In Sets only → Proof as all the rest of the years.

2 euro cent: From 2017 A till 2020 J

5 euro cent: From 2019 A till 2021 J

2. For all the coins mentioned I noticed as well that the comment In Sets only changes to in Sets only (stopped use of the capital I), to be consistent I suggest to changed it all to either In Sets only.

1 euro cent: From 2017 A till present

2 euro cent: From 2019 A till 2019 J

5 euro cent: From 2019 A till present

3. For all the coins mentioned I noticed that there's suddenly a comment in many year lines saying "Small oak leaf, see comments" and because there is no other version for those years that have the comment, like Long oak leaf, I would suggest removing those comments from the year line as it's already mentioned above in the general coin page comments with an image.

Comments is present for

1 euro cent: From 2019 A till 2021 J

2 euro cent: 2016 G and 2017 A till 2020 J

5 euro cent: 2019 A till 2021 J

Now I had made all those changes by modifying the pages myself, however Florino28 simply declined all of the proposed changes with the comment “no change !!!"  even though I described in detail what I changed. So I do not understand why this change would be denied as it will only improve the consistency of our coin pages and makes it easier to read and add the correct coin, making it look more professional.

I am willing to make all the modifications again if I know that it will be accepted this time.

Sala

You should be able to click Appeal in the upper right of the change page to have someone take another look at your modification request.

Yes - Just appeal, he is not good with English and rejects a lot of stuff because he does not understand it when someone is trying to improve things. His “no change !!!"  comment is quite rude and abrupt. 

I bashed my head against a brick wall with him until we were able to appeal rejections.

And yes I would like to see those German euro cent mintage lines cleaned up a bit too.

Mike

Even if you write in French you will most likely get the same result if you want to change something more substantial then a minor mistake.

Realize that the Referee does not have control over the order of the year lines. It has nothing to do with who added them  It follows a strict structure that orders them by:

1. year, then 

2. mint mark, then

3. year line comment alphabetically

You can not arbitrarily place the circulation coin as first if the  year line comment does not come first alphabetically.  That's why the coin order “suddenly changes” when the comment Small oak leaf, see comments is added to the circulation coin year line.

rsirian1

Realize that the Referee does not have control over the order of the year lines. It has nothing to do with who added them  It follows a strict structure that orders them by:

 

1. year, then 

2. mint mark, then

3. year line comment alphabetically

 

You can not arbitrarily place the circulation coin as first if the  year line comment does not come first alphabetically.  That's why the coin order “suddenly changes” when the comment Small oak leaf, see comments is added to the circulation coin year line.

Right, I did not  know that.

Who should I contact to get this fixed if not a referee? 
Also I thought Florino28 changed it after we had some messages, but guess now it's changed back automatically?
I had also requested though to remove that comment “Small oak leaf, see comments” as it's useless to have it at every year line if there's no other variant.

Salaction

Who should I contact to get this fixed if not a referee? 

Technically, nobody.

Unfortunately, custom ordering is not possible.

The ordering is based on shared criteria as pointed above by rsirian1 and this is applied to the whole catalogue.

pejounet

Salaction

Who should I contact to get this fixed if not a referee? 

Technically, nobody. Unfortunately, custom ordering is not possible.

The ordering is based on shared criteria as pointed above by rsirian1 and this is applied to the whole catalogue.

So does that mean, Pejounet, that the year line order cannot be changed for those coins I mentioned here and possibly others?

Salaction

pejounet

Salaction

Who should I contact to get this fixed if not a referee? 

Technically, nobody. Unfortunately, custom ordering is not possible.

The ordering is based on shared criteria as pointed above by rsirian1 and this is applied to the whole catalogue.

So does that mean, Pejounet, that the year line order cannot be changed for those coins I mentioned here and possibly others?

Technically order can change if year, mintmark or line comment change but that is not something that can be applied automatically.

Meaning if you change comments on 1 page, other pages will not change/align. There will still be discrepancies.

I think it would be hard to manage (specifically for pages with many varieties) but you can still submit a ticket suggesting an idea to improve Numista in the “Website forum”. This can eventually help track the idea.

pejounet

Salaction

pejounet

Salaction

Who should I contact to get this fixed if not a referee? 

Technically, nobody. Unfortunately, custom ordering is not possible.

The ordering is based on shared criteria as pointed above by rsirian1 and this is applied to the whole catalogue.

So does that mean, Pejounet, that the year line order cannot be changed for those coins I mentioned here and possibly others?

Technically order can change if year, mintmark or line comment change but that is not something that can be applied automatically.

Meaning if you change comments on 1 page, other pages will not change/align. There will still be discrepancies.

 

I think it would be hard to manage (specifically for pages with many varieties) but you can still submit a ticket suggesting an idea to improve Numista in the “Website forum”. This can eventually help track the idea.

Alright, thank you for your explanation :)

rsirian1

Realize that the Referee does not have control over the order of the year lines. It has nothing to do with who added them  It follows a strict structure that orders them by:

 

1. year, then 

2. mint mark, then

3. year line comment alphabetically

 

You can not arbitrarily place the circulation coin as first if the  year line comment does not come first alphabetically.  That's why the coin order “suddenly changes” when the comment Small oak leaf, see comments is added to the circulation coin year line.

This is how the year lines are now (I might even have been responsible for that!)

This is the order of today, but I added a 4th line with my suggestion, how to solve our problem:

Now, I sort that with the text as criterium:

And everything is fine, so we just have to overwrite “Small oak leaves, see comments” with “Circ: Small oak leaves, see comments” and Numista will automatically sort the year lines in the good order again!

If you agree on this, I don't mind to clean my own mess, which I'm sorry for. Rsirian1 and I learned all about the proper order of year lines, when we started to document all the early American coins….. 

Good solution Ole - I support it.  😍

Mike

What's ‘circ’ … circa, circled, circumference, circulation?

I find it far more irritating that we have ‘in set only' everywhere when in fact the years aren't only available in sets.

Idolenz

What's ‘circ’ … circa, circled, circumference, circulation?

I find it far more irritating that we have ‘in set only' everywhere when in fact the years aren't only available in sets.

“Circ” is short of “circulation”. Circulating will do the same thing for the year line sort, but it's more work to write. BTW a decision hasn't been made yet😉

Do I remember something about an abbreviation NCLT = “Non CircuLaTing”? Although NCLT could also mean “Number of CLienT” or “National Company Law Tribunal” or scores of other things!

Change “in sets only” into “from official sets” and it'll still be sorted behind the “Circ” coins. The robot would certainly adore to do that, like it would also be possible for it, to change the “Small oak leaves, see comments” into “Circulation: Small oak leaves, see comments”☺️

Okay, it's just generally better to write things out especially if it isn't a relatively common abbreviation.

The robot will most likely only be used if you have hundreds or thousands of changes.

My 2 cents….

If the graphic in the comments states that Small oak leaf  starts at a certain year and forward, why put that comment on each year line from that year forward?  Whoever added the 2022 didn't use that comment.  Is that because in 2022 they reverted back to the large?  Very confusing.  Removing Small oak leaf, see comments would solve the order issue.

In sets only is not used for US coins even though uncirculated sets are issued by the mint every year.  I add my uncirclated set coins to the normal business strike year line with a UNC set collection tag.  I'm in favor of removing those year lines.  And then there's Australia with 6 different sets for each year.

NCLT = Non-Circulating Legal Tender  

The year line text should be kept short, right?

The distribution of Large & Small oak leaves

They are not always  systematic, those Germans😁

2 e-cents: 2016 year line for the G would be “SOL from 2016 and unwards” and then no more mentioning for the next years?

2 e-cents: 2017 year line for A,D,F & J would be “SOL from 2017 and unwards” and then no more mentioning for the next years.?

For the 1 & 5 e-cent coins it would be according to the table above and the year line texts just mentioned?

May I suggest something along the lines of this for a new graphic?

Let's see if we get any other suggestions? Anyway it's all doable for the graphic, but I still would like to hear from the OP. I suppose he has an idea as well, and specially about the text in the year lines.

Salaction

3. For all the coins mentioned I noticed that there's suddenly a comment in many year lines saying "Small oak leaf, see comments" and because there is no other version for those years that have the comment, like Long oak leaf, I would suggest removing those comments from the year line as it's already mentioned above in the general coin page comments with an image.

I suggest, that “Salaction” changes all the year lines once it has been decided how we formulate (which text) the two questioned year lines should have. I mean, "Proof" certainly stays? We have to decide it in written in this thread, see the CR below.

I change the graphics for the 1,2  & 5 e-cent coins and publish them here for approval, before making the CR.

In the two CR this thread has to copied in as source in the CR

“Agreed decisions according to https://en.numista.com/forum/ecrire_post.php?re=123852”.

If the referee refuses the CR again , then we make a complaint to Jarcek or Xavier, it normally works. I even think there is a button somewhere, which is foreseen for that purpose?

I think we're stuck with keeping the In Sets only year lines.  Getting rid of them is an enormous effort as an Admin (not the referee) would have to move members for each one then delete the year lines.

With a revised graphic the year line comments for SOL could be removed without loss of information and satisfy the OP's request to make the circulating coins come first.

Those are my votes.

rsirian1

I think we're stuck with keeping the In Sets only year lines.  Getting rid of them is an enormous effort as an Admin (not the referee) would have to move members for each one then delete the year lines.

I would not delete those “In sets only” year lines at all, just change the text into “From official sets”! That doesn't create any moving of owners in my opnion. Citation from Idolenz : I find it far more irritating that we have ‘in set only' everywhere when in fact the years aren't only available in sets! It's kind of like the different colors of coin cards inside the same year, I suppose?

Since we have had no reactions since some time I've made a CR for the km207 (1 cent) as a test.

The graphic as suggested by Rsirian

and the year lines as follows:

The “From now small oak leaves etc” is only applied once and will appear in the proper order, ie first.

I've also changed most of “In sets only” to “In sets”, some of the years only had "proof" and “Sets”, so there I didn't change anything.

The CR was issued today, the 9th of September, so we will have to wait for an eventual validation. I do not plan to to make CR for the 2 & 5 cents, before this has been validated.

Looks good.  Nice cleanup.

rsirian1

Looks good.  Nice cleanup.

Still not completely validated. Nothing rejected, but all changes were not taken into account, so I made an additional CR.

Sjoelund

rsirian1

Looks good.  Nice cleanup.

Still not completely validated. Nothing rejected, but all changes were not taken into account, so I made an additional CR.

Didn't accept the revised graphic???

rsirian1

Sjoelund

rsirian1

Looks good.  Nice cleanup.

Still not completely validated. Nothing rejected, but all changes were not taken into account, so I made an additional CR.

Didn't accept the revised graphic???

Not refused, but not taken into account, I'll see what happens next, since the graphic and the 5 year lines with “from now….” were not introduced. Hence, I made a new CR with those modifications again.

OK.  Changes don't make much sense without the new graphic added and the old one deleted.

Hi,

For the problem mentioned in the forum, it is necessary to put the formula between () so that the order is not impacted. The comment is marked on the form, I think it is sufficient.

regards

florino28

Florino28

Hi,

 

For the problem mentioned in the forum, it is necessary to put the formula between () so that the order is not impacted. The comment is marked on the form, I think it is sufficient.

 

regards

florino28

Numista sorts in alphabetical order, so my CR is correct, no need to use (from etc)?

So not:

in the 2019 year lines please take out the texts, since the year line texts in the 2018 lines say everything needed?

Florino28

Hi,

 

For the problem mentioned in the forum, it is necessary to put the formula between () so that the order is not impacted. The comment is marked on the form, I think it is sufficient.

 

regards

florino28

Numista sorts in alphabetical order, so my CR is correct, no need to use (from etc)?

I have remitted the CR for the 1 cent, the CR of the 2 & 5 cents as well.