Some is producing entries with garbage lettering in the Rome section [solved]

There are many new entries with non-literal lettering in the Rome section.

There are many new entries with “/” in the lettering. Over two hundred in the last 20 days. (Plus a few more I fixed.)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=rome_section&r=%2Fnew20%2F&st=all&cat=y&im1=&im2=&ru=&ie=&ca=3&no=&v=&a=&dg=&i=%2F&b=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&w=&mt=&u=&g=&c=&wi=&sw=

There are many where the lettering has notes like “(above}” or “(right of field)”. Many with parenthesis to indicate lettering variations (which I don't know how to search for – the characters are generally ignored in Numista searches).

Could someone please find out which referees are approving this garbage and ask them to review the Numista guidelines and fix the mess they created. Tell them “lettering is literal”. And also contact the individuals creating the entries with the same message.

Probably direct imports of the referenced online database (maybe even automated). But the person who machine added the 1000s of Roman coins before is long gone.

Four more were added in the last day, all under Roman provinces.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=rome_section&r=%2Fnew1%2F&st=all&cat=y&im1=&im2=&ru=&ie=&ca=3&no=&v=&a=&dg=&i=%2F&b=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&w=&mt=&u=&g=&c=&wi=&sw=

@Jarcek and @SirFabsi , you are the two catalog referees listed for Roman provinces. Are one of you approving these?

Hello,

I am producing these actually. They are being imported, so yes, it carries some problems, this one is not really solvable though. It will have to be sorted the old way, slowly and painfully.

Best regards,

Jarek