Add Comment Field to Mint Section

Many times the same mint is listed for different coins of the same type and the differences are shown in the year line comments for each and every year line. Such an example is discussed in this forum post: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic120116.html If comments could be added to the Mint section against each mint this would unclutter the year lines. There's probably other instances where this would be useful. I suggest adding a comment field for free text such as this:



As an example, for this coin: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces325.html

The input would look like this:


The coin page would look like this:


and the year lines would look like this (with the same comments removed from all the year lines):

This tool can be very useful, and I see that it has 9 upvotes.

 

In the case of the Andorra Euros, it could go very well to put the comment "Even-numbered years" for Madrid mint and "Odd-numbered years" for Pessac mint, and thus the year lines would not look so loaded.

11 up votes and still nothing?

If you want to use the same field for two  different type of marks (mint and composition marks), I would propose to change the field title to  Mark instead of Mintmark. 

Québécois

If you want to use the same field for two  different type of marks (mint and composition marks), I would propose to change the field title to just Mark instead of Mintmark. 

No, want to use it for comments, not marks.  As an example:

 

I understand but when you submitted this proposition  last   year, you use a Canadian coin that showed a wrong usage of the mintmark field  witch was corrected since.   That was my only concern.

 

If you look at the coin page today you will still  see the comments  for the composition marks in the year lines.  By  changing the mintmark title to mark, we could also clean  the year lines  from these. 

 

Your new comment field could also be use for the composition marks. One rock two birds  !

Québécois

I understand but when you submitted this proposition  last   year, you use a Canadian coin that showed a wrong usage of the mintmark field  witch was corrected since.   That was my only concern.

 

If you look at the coin page today you will still  see the comments  for the composition marks in the year lines.  By  changing the mintmark title to mark, we could also clean  the year lines  from these. 

 

Your new comment field could also be use for the composition marks. One rock two birds  !

Yes, I saw that the example I used at first had been fixed in a different way.  This new example was for a recent post that has also been fixed a different way by adding a general comment.  I think it would be easier and cleaner it mint specific comments are attached to the mint section itself.

I agree 

We should not mix the apples with the calvados.

 

Marks can be:

 

Mint marks, as used by some mints

Die marks, as used by some mints but specially PobJoy

Designer marks, Belgium, France, Denmark etc

Mint master marks, Belgium, France, Denmark etc

Country marks like on modern euro coins 

 

We also have countries, where we know that one and the same year, several mints from several countries were minting them, but we absolutely can not distinguish between them….

 

Those marks, which can be seen on the coins, should all have a way to be documented correctly in numista without being described in each year line comment field. I propose some big heads in the upper echelon of Numista with some input from members, like rsirian and oynbcn (count me out, getting too old to think straight), should start a think tank to try to put that in place for the common good?

Here is a good example where a comment field for mints would be useful:  N#70

 

The necessary comments had to be added in the Mintmark field:

 

rsirian1

The necessary comments had to be added in the Mintmark field:

 

Well done guys …

Here the french:

Here the spanish:

I know few words of French and Spanish as a french guy living in Spain and can tell you that it's not correct in 2 out of 3 Numista.

 

Here the guidelines:

 

Look like the referee that approved this change don't know that.

We really need to bring more attention on this topic.

I sent note to the referre while requesting to remove those comments (which should go in tha main Comments section)
Thanks

I rescue this topic created by @rsirian1  since I think it would be a great improvement for Numista.

 

If we could add a comment field in each row of Mints, we would have all the necessary information in this section and comments about Mints should not be added in the General Comments section. 

 

There are cases like the Andorran Euros, which in even years are issued by one mint and in odd years by another (this comment could be placed next to each one). Other cases in which, for a few years it was printed by one mint and in a later period by another (the range of years could be put next to each mint), etc...

 

As an example, in the old coins of Spain (and many other countries like France) there are many cases of the same coin issued by several mints, and each one is assigned a different KM, for example:

 

N#18388

 

NOW:

 

 

PROPOSAL:

 

I think that with this proposal a couple of concepts are improved: 

1. Everything related to Mints is in the same section. 

2. The Comments section is freed to include information that does not have its own section.

 

Many thanks in advance!!!

Any news on this proposal? At least I would like to know the opinion of the administrators, if they see this idea as useful or if they plan to implement it (even in the future). I don't want to be annoying, but I think it would be very useful for certain countries with several mints issuing coins in a same period.