Wrong usage of Reference field [solved]

Hello,

Some users are using the reference field to mention nr = Non referenced in the Reference field:

Example 1, 2 and 3.

We are basically saying that the reference is not in the catalog but doing so, it shows into the catalog, clever move.

Please can we correct it and prevent referees to approve this?

The correct usage is a dash instead of a reference code.

If only a small number of coins are missing from a standard monograph (reference catalogue dedicated to a very specific topic) that is used consistently for an issuer, then an en dash (“–”) can be used instead of a reference code, to show that the coins are unlisted:

This shouldn't be overused, but it is helpful when it is obvious a coin should be in a catalog but it isn't –  the - saves me the effort of trying to find the coin in the catalog myself.

bjherbison

The correct usage is a dash instead of a reference code.

This isn’t a correct usage neither, if it’s not in the catalogue, it’s not in the catalogue, that’s all.

This sentence of the guideline is creating inconsistency:

If only a small number of coins are missing from a standard monograph (reference catalogue dedicated to a very specific topic) that is used consistently for an issuer, then an en dash (“–”) can be used instead of a reference code, to show that the coins are unlisted:

Because when I go to this page, it says: “Some items referenced in this catalogue”.

So or it's in, or it's out, but we can't say in the guideline:"…to show that the coins are unlisted:" and on the catalogue page saying: “Some items referenced in this catalogue”, we are saying 2 opposite things between guideline and catalogue.

Should we start to mention mint, where it would have been nice to see this coins struck instead of reflecting the reality? I mean, with the current guideline, it would surely not be a problem to mention this mint to this coin.

Looking at the search results you linked there are several instances where the reference string is nr and a page number. It would be useful to get the editors and referees involved to understand what they are trying to do and what those pages show.

bjherbison

Looking at the search results you linked there are several instances where the reference string is nr and a page number. It would be useful to get the editors and referees involved to understand what they are trying to do and what those pages show.

I guess the editor is the referee himself.

A master piece:

Indomini16

I guess the editor is the referee himself.

A master piece:

I made a change request and that bogus reference number is gone.
N#31937

Hello,
There is now an automatic correction to prevent this.

I am not sure I understand. Does a referee accept a request to add a reference with a dash to indicate it isn't in a reference? I ask because I have a request to add a reference with a dash to this page.

JLHare

I am not sure I understand. Does a referee accept a request to add a reference with a dash to indicate it isn't in a reference? I ask because I have a request to add a reference with a dash to this page.

My understanding of the use of a dash: Adding Squid# - to an item says: “You would expect this item to be in the Squid catalog but it isn't. We checked. Twice.”

See the guidelines for an example of when it is appropriate.

It's up to the referee to decide whether the coin actually isn't in the catalog and whether an omission is notable enough to justify the dash, trying to be consistent for the catalog and the collecting area.

For N#381834 , what catalog do you think should have that item?

bjherbison

For N#381834 , what catalog do you think should have that item?

I have not been a referee as long as some others. And in the short time I have been a referee, this is the first request I have had in regard to this. Thank you for pointing it out in the guidelines. But now I have a question in regard to this and another thread.

It does not apply to the link I provided but if a page has multiple date lines with references attached to the date lines. Won’t having a reference in the feature section with a dash or NR present a new set of problems? Please see thread link below.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic149970.html

From the thread above.

Xavier

The “Features” section shows both the references associated to the type (filled at the top of the modification form) and the variety line references (filled in the variety table of the modification page).
If the same catalogue is used for both the type and the variety lines, the number associated to the type has priority.

JLHare

 

It does not apply to the link I provided but if a page has multiple date lines with references attached to the date lines. Won’t having a reference in the feature section with a dash or NR present a new set of problems? Please see thread link below.

Wow, that's interesting. Several times I've written comments like “catalog a has this type for these years and catalog has this type for those years”. (I won't name the catalog that most often seems to be wrong but it's initials are K.M.)

This could be handled by mintage line comments:

1723 AKS# 47 KM# 13

1724 AKS# 47 KM# 13

1725 AKS# 47 KM# -

But I wouldn't want the "KM# -" rolled up to the full page description.

It's fine to have a dash (–) as a refence for a variety line, to indicate that it's within the scope of a catalogue that we usually use as a reference for this kind of coin, but it's missing from the catalogue.

I made a change so that the dash-reference won't appear in the “Features” section.