Sorry Sjoelund but I don't understand, what is it exactly that you are proposing or asking ?
Or is it just a comment you are making ?
Best retards,
A referee, see above, rejected a Change Request for adding to KM# in the references, because he seems to know, that the KM will be moved to the year lines! I'm asking if that's really true, that such a thing is being discussed in the higher echelons of Numista?
Not moved, there will still be reference numbers on the page. There will be however, the possibility to add reference numbers on year lines. This will be searchable as well.
I guess we need to clarify how references are going to be used if some references pertain to only part of the page.
Please use appeal button on your modification request. As I said, this will serve as ground for discussing how references on page and on year line should be used and as a reminder for us.
Catalogue administrator
Status changed to Done(Jarcek, 16 May 2023, 09:49)
I rejected the fact to replace “KM#779” by “KM#779.1” and “KM#779.2”. and added a comment about the future feature, hoping it would serve what I supposed was this request's goal.
But even without the planned feature I would have rejected, so I may have missed some guideline here?
I think it comes down to the question: Are KM#779.1 and KM#779.2 the same SCWC code or are they different codes? I don't think they can be considered the same code.
I think it comes down to the question: Are KM#779.1 and KM#779.2 the same SCWC code or are they different codes? I don't think they can be considered the same code.
Indeed it is the question. For me they are 2 sub versions of the same KM 779, as this editor did not chose to call them 779 and 780.
Exactly the same with many other catalogues using letters like Nouchy in the example I gave
I disagree but I see your point. There are probably many examples of coin pages done both ways. In the end it really comes down to the particular country's referee.
I think it comes down to the question: Are KM#779.1 and KM#779.2 the same SCWC code or are they different codes? I don't think they can be considered the same code.
Indeed it is the question. For me they are 2 sub versions of the same KM 779, as this editor did not chose to call them 779 and 780.
Exactly the same with many other catalogues using letters like Nouchy in the example I gave
There is no KM# 779. Krause has two entries, KM# 779.1 and KM# 779.2. Using Krause as a reference there is no coin that should be identified as KM# 779.
The same applies to Numismaster. There are two entries:
There has never been a KM# 779 for these coins. Going back to the 23rd SCWC (1996) there is KM# 554.1 and KM# 554.2 which were renumbered into KM# 779.1 and KM# 779.2. There might have been a KM# 554 in an earlier edition, but that wouldn't be relevant to this discussion.
There is no KM# 779. Krause has two entries, KM# 779.1 and KM# 779.2. Using Krause as a reference there is no coin that should be identified as KM# 779.
For me it is irrelevant as on Numista, per our guidelines, we have one entry gathering those 2, it is why putting simply “KM 779” makes sense. Only usecase where I'd find logical to indicate two different 779.1 and 779.2 would be that this specific Numista entry is only about those two specific sub versions, but other Numista entries are linked to additional subversions like “779.3” and “779.4” for instance (which is not the case here if I'm not wrong)
What if an entry on Numista matches multiple numbers in a reference catalogue?
If a coin type has more than one code in a reference catalogue, always add the first one (or the most relevant). The same reference catalogue may be added in a new line for recording multiple numbers, provided you didn't reach the maximum number of references.
I think you have to use the code(s) that is actually used in the catalog you're referencing.
What if an entry on Numista matches multiple numbers in a reference catalogue?
If a coin type has more than one code in a reference catalogue, always add the first one (or the most relevant). The same reference catalogue may be added in a new line for recording multiple numbers, provided you didn't reach the maximum number of references.
I think you have to use the code(s) that is actually used in the catalog you're referencing.
It is precisely where our interpretation differ: for me KM 779 is a legit catalogue code, 779.1 and 779.2 are “just” subversions. If KM editor wanted to separate those entries, they wouldhave called them 779 and 780 :-)
What if an entry on Numista matches multiple numbers in a reference catalogue?
If a coin type has more than one code in a reference catalogue, always add the first one (or the most relevant). The same reference catalogue may be added in a new line for recording multiple numbers, provided you didn't reach the maximum number of references.
I think you have to use the code(s) that is actually used in the catalog you're referencing.
It is precisely where our interpretation differ: for me KM 779 is a legit catalogue code, 779.1 and 779.2 are “just” subversions. If KM editor wanted to separate those entries, they wouldhave called them 779 and 780 :-)
I think a referee should follow the guidelines, as says rsirian1. Personally, I have nothing against the km779, but 779.1 and 779.2 MUST be included in the references as well, since most people still relate their coins to the KM catalogs. So they should be able to find the same references in Numista as well!
It was this inclusion of 779.1 and 779.2 this special referee didn't accept. Plenty of the other referees (just as an information) have accepted my additions of the REAL km# without any complaints or discussions.
I think a referee should follow the guidelines, as says rsirian1. Personally, I have nothing against the km779, but 779.1 and 779.2 MUST be included in the references as well, since most people still relate their coins to the KM catalogs. So they should be able to find the same references in Numista as well!
This referee was myself ^^
The issue you raise, “being able to find the same references in Numista”, is totally relevant, but is something related to search engine; my point of view is that there are technical solutions for that which don't require to duplicate reference number codes in the main area.
I think a referee should follow the guidelines, as says rsirian1. Personally, I have nothing against the km779, but 779.1 and 779.2 MUST be included in the references as well, since most people still relate their coins to the KM catalogs. So they should be able to find the same references in Numista as well!
This referee was myself ^^
The issue you raise, “being able to find the same references in Numista”, is totally relevant, but is something related to search engine; my point of view is that there are technical solutions for that which don't require to duplicate reference number codes in the main area.
Try to search for km779, without 779.1 being in one of the reference fields, and it'll not work, of course. The technical possibilities of searching the references in the year lines is not there, and I doubt it can be done with ease. It'll probably be too heavy on the performances of numista, if it were introduced. Can you imagine searching through each year line instead of just the types?
Try to search for km779, without 779.1 being in one of the reference fields, and it'll not work, of course. The technical possibilities of searching the references in the year lines is not there, and I doubt it can be done with ease. It'll probably be too heavy on the performances of numista, if it were introduced. Can you imagine searching through each year line instead of just the types?
Search is quite a light tech process from my experience. Currently we search in all fields except yearlines, it is huge and performances are smooth I believe Anyway it is not you or me who must say if it's doable or not, it is Xavier ^^
Try to search for km779, without 779.1 being in one of the reference fields, and it'll not work, of course. The technical possibilities of searching the references in the year lines is not there, and I doubt it can be done with ease. It'll probably be too heavy on the performances of numista, if it were introduced. Can you imagine searching through each year line instead of just the types?
Currently we search in all fields except yearlines,
Not to throw a monkey wrench into our argument but year line comments are now searchable:
There has never been a KM# 779 for these coins. Going back to the 23rd SCWC (1996) there is KM# 554.1 and KM# 554.2 which were renumbered into KM# 779.1 and KM# 779.2. There might have been a KM# 554 in an earlier edition, but that wouldn't be relevant to this discussion.
What ? Km Numbers can change ?
Québécois
Ancienement, référent du Canada / FYI former referee for Canada
Do you know why or the reasons for a number to change ?
A new contributor for a country in the SCWC taking over a country and finding it badly organized numberwise, could, with the agreement of George Cuhaj, do that.
Edit: The reason could also be, that a lot of coins were missing in the first try to set up the numbers for the country.
Try to search for km779, without 779.1 being in one of the reference fields, and it'll not work, of course. The technical possibilities of searching the references in the year lines is not there, and I doubt it can be done with ease. It'll probably be too heavy on the performances of numista, if it were introduced. Can you imagine searching through each year line instead of just the types?
Currently we search in all fields except yearlines,
Not to throw a monkey wrench into our argument but year line comments are now searchable:
I don't mind monkey wrenches, even if they show, I was completely wrong. Now we can have it as we want, except I would hate to see a year line with more than ONE reference number, since it's not the principal purpose of a year line to carry reference numbers, which is just an invention of numista to “rationalize” pages!
We're still left with this which shouldn't be. Sure there's a workaround but if you didn't know you'd conclude that coin doesn't exist in the Numista catalog.
As explained : the research already works in plain text but not yet with specific catalogue option search, because for that we need a new feature which is to attach an actual catalogue code to each yearline, instead of just using comments area for this purpose
