We are migrating to a new format to store face values (denominations). The possible face values are now stored in a database. When adding a new coin to the catalogue, you will select within a list of all the denominations for the selected currency instead of entering the text and numeric face value as free text.
There are multiple goals for this change:
Better quality: With a curated list of denominations, there is less risk of mistake than a free text and correction of errors apply for all applicable coins at once.
Enhanced data: We can stored more data associated to each face value. This can be useful to store both the name of the currency in the language of the country of the coins and in English for example.
Easier translation: A central list of denominations can be translated more easily. It can also be translated even for languages such as Spanish (and German and Italian in the future) which don't have translations for each coin.
The initial list of face values has been built based on the face values for all the items in the catalogue. While the website has already been updated to use this list instead of free texts, we are currently working on removing the duplicates and adjusting the invalid values. Please bear with us during this lengthy process. Once we are in a better position, we can work together in improving the data (adding the name of the denomination in the language of the country of the coin, fixing remaining errors, etc.)
There is currently no impact on the display of the catalogue (except for the correction of errors detected during the ongoing process of verifying and correcting the database of denominations). The only impact is on adding or modifying items of the catalogue.
Note that, unlike currencies for example, in case a denomination is missing, you can still add it without asking for the addition of the denomination a priori. You can select “other” and specify the face value. This will create a new face value automatically, that will be reviewed and enhanced a posteriori.
New selection of the denomination when editing the catalogue
Nice improvement, could you also think about the letter for the reference number, SWZ would be “KM”, RUS “Y”, France “KM” (more non French members, than French!) etc?
Hello Sjoelund. I understand you are referring to a default primary reference catalogue number for each country. The idea is tracked here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic48261.html. It's currently not on my priority list. Feel free to comment over there if it's important for you.
We are still in the process to clean up the data. We didn't start for denominations associated with no currency, which explains why the dropdown list looks so bad for many exonumia entries. We will work on that.
Ce n'est pas catastrophique mais un peu surprenant de voir des dénominations qui n'ont jamais existé pour les pièces et billets du Canada apparaitre dans la liste déroulante; elles viennent de la catégorie Exonumia qui contient tout et n'importe quoi. 😉
Ex: 100 cents ou 200 cents
Ex: 1 ½ dollar ou 3 ½ dollars
Québécois
Ancienement, référent du Canada / FYI former referee for Canada
This is a nice improvement. When finished the catalog will be much more consistent.
Because of the change some guidelines changes are needed. The Face value in word form and Face value in figure form are mentioned in the guidelines but gone from the edit page, but it might be useful to have something displayed next to the Other Please specify field.
Currently for medals (and probably other types) the only option for Currency and Denomination is Unknown. It would be better to have Not applicable.
Will it be possible to request changes to an item in the drop-down list rather than having to change all occurrences by hand? For example, Irish 10 shilling notes (e.g., N#230086) all have “10 Shillings (10⁄20)”. I'm not sure how that has happened but “10 Shillings (½)” would be much better.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
If you see a bug, let us know surely. You can do that here for the time being. And yes, we can either modify the face value to force a change, merge some or change all respective coins to new denomination. You can speed up the process in some cases where there are for example just one or two instances of wrong face value by fixing them and we will only delete the empty value afterwards.
There will be a lot of errors still, even though we already eliminated more than 10 000 error values.
That should make things a lot easier. In addition to the Irish example above, can I request the face values “3-½ Gulden = 2 Thaler (3.5)” and “2 Thaler = 3-½ Gulden (3.5)" on Bavarian coins (e.g., here and here) both be replaced with “3½ Gulden = 2 Thaler (3.5)”. Again, I'm not sure where the hyphen came from but it isn't appropriate for a mixed fraction.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
That should make things a lot easier. In addition to the Irish example above, can I request the face values “3-½ Gulden = 2 Thaler (3.5)” and “2 Thaler = 3-½ Gulden (3.5)" on Bavarian coins (e.g., here and here) both be replaced with “3½ Gulden = 2 Thaler (3.5)”. Again, I'm not sure where the hyphen came from but it isn't appropriate for a mixed fraction.
Good thought. It should be possible to search all face values in the database for a hyphen. It will catch errors like this, some other classes of errors (and probably some correct face values).
For the moment we are focusing on removing duplicates and fixing obvious errors, while we go through all the 40,000+ denominations.
I would prefer if you could wait for this process to be completed before reporting errors. Then, errors will be handled through the tickets of type “currency”, which will be extended for currencies and denominations.
The guidelines will be reorganized to handle this new field. For the moment, even if we are not really modifying existing face values apart from merging duplicates and fixing the most obvious wrong values, we still rely on the guidelines at https://en.numista.com/help/face-value-in-word-form-105.html
For the moment we are focusing on removing duplicates and fixing obvious errors, while we go through all the 40,000+ denominations.
I would prefer if you could wait for this process to be completed before reporting errors. Then, errors will be handled through the tickets of type “currency”, which will be extended for currencies and denominations.
The guidelines will be reorganized to handle this new field. For the moment, even if we are not really modifying existing face values apart from merging duplicates and fixing the most obvious wrong values, we still rely on the guidelines at https://en.numista.com/help/face-value-in-word-form-105.html
OK, no problem. I've done the Irish 10 shilling notes and worked out that the 10⁄20 came from the 10 shillings coin.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I corrected the spelling of the face value for this coin and three others but the fraction doesn't get properly picked up when entered using the “other” option. It still shows as 1/288 rather than 1⁄288 and the coins are listed after all the rest in that currency rather than near the begining. Is there a bug in picking up the numerical face value when entered this way? I naively assumed that whatever was in brackets would get treated the same way as the old numerical face value. Was that assumption wrong?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
The right way to correct a denomination is to correct it in the denomination database. Creating new denominations with the option “Other” would still keep the wrong denomination in database, leaving space for errors when other people will edit coins in the future.
New denominations created with the option “Other” need a review by admins a posteriori before they are fully working.
The right way to correct a denomination is to correct it in the denomination database. Creating new denominations with the option “Other” would still keep the wrong denomination in database, leaving space for errors when other people will edit coins in the future.
New denominations created with the option “Other” need a review by admins a posteriori before they are fully working.
That's a shame. Perhaps this responsibilty could be delegated to referees?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
While it is not primary goal now, you might start seeing some improvements going further than simple unification - I am correcting spelling/capital letters/non-capitalized values, values without numbers, values without figure form and local names.
Also Spanish and German/Italian (which cannot be seen yet) are being added.
So does that mean all the ½s that were previously entered aren't being recognized as numbers any more? That's quite a bug. I hope the fix is easy to implement.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
There was a bug which caused a delay in refreshing the order of banknotes after an update of the denomination. This is fixed. In case of change in the database of denominations, the order will be updated during the night.
The same has happened to the Irish 10 shillings notes I changed yesterday, the ½ is being ignored. This method is definitely not working yet.
I fixed it
Now we're back to 10⁄20, so the problem isn't fixed, the face value has simply been reverted to the old one. Can this face value be changed to display 1⁄2? That seems to be only method available.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
The same has happened to the Irish 10 shillings notes I changed yesterday, the ½ is being ignored. This method is definitely not working yet.
I fixed it
Now we're back to 10⁄20, so the problem isn't fixed, the face value has simply been reverted to the old one. Can this face value be changed to display 1⁄2? That seems to be only method available.
I think 10/20 is the correct value as we're talking about 10 Shillings of 1/20 Pound
I think 10/20 is the correct value as we're talking about 10 Shillings of 1/20 Pound
This is a fraction, so we should always show it in its reduced form. I see this error has crept in to a number of British denominations, though with little consistency. For example, this threepence has 1⁄80, not 3⁄240 as you would have it. If you prefer, I'll raise this in a separate thread.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I think 10/20 is the correct value as we're talking about 10 Shillings of 1/20 Pound
This is a fraction, so we should always show it in its reduced form. I see this error has crept in to a number of British denominations, though with little consistency. For example, this threepence has 1⁄80, not 3⁄240 as you would have it. If you prefer, I'll raise this in a separate thread.
Yes please I think it's better to have this discussion separately ; I think I remember Xavier preferring 10/20 when the unit on the coin is 10 shillings, and I concur as it is more precise than reducing all fractions ; For instance having ½ for “½ Franc” coins and 50/100 for “50 centimes” coins, even if they have same value, would seem appropriate to me in this field
Yes please I think it's better to have this discussion separately ; I think I remember Xavier preferring 10/20 when the unit on the coin is 10 shillings, and I concur as it is more precise than reducing all fractions ; For instance having ½ for “½ Franc” coins and 50/100 for “50 centimes” coins, even if they have same value, would seem appropriate to me in this field
I see where you're both coming from but for me having the same value on both a ½ franc and a 50 centimes is more important, as well as being mathematically correct. I'll start a new thread. At least the new system will help implement a consistent approach.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Yes please I think it's better to have this discussion separately ; I think I remember Xavier preferring 10/20 when the unit on the coin is 10 shillings, and I concur as it is more precise than reducing all fractions ; For instance having ½ for “½ Franc” coins and 50/100 for “50 centimes” coins, even if they have same value, would seem appropriate to me in this field
I see where you're both coming from but for me having the same value on both a ½ franc and a 50 centimes is more important, as well as being mathematically correct. I'll start a new thread. At least the new system will help implement a consistent approach.
totally
and let's remember that for sorting what is used is another column in the DB with the result of the fraction, so whatever their numerators and denominators, same value coins will be sorted correctly
But the currency for Isles de France and de Bourbon is Livre Tournois. From the definition for Livre Tournois used for France that isn't a decimal currency system so it should be “2 Sols (1⁄10)”.
All face values are stored as fractions (this didn't change with the change of storage discussed in this thread). Numista displays as a decimal number if the denominator is a power of 10 (namely 10, 100, 100, etc.) and as a fraction in other cases. In this case, the face value should probably have been entered as the fraction 2/20, which would result in a display as “2⁄20”. For further discussion about the display of numeric face values, I recommend we discuss in the new topic opened by ceh2019.
‘10/20’ is correct to express 10 Shillings as a fraction, considering the currency was then a duo-decimal system derived from the anciient Roman system.
All currency units should start with a capital letter in the pull-down list.
The vast majority of Roman provincial, civic, and semi-autonomous coinage has uncertain values. We don't even know if it was in any way related to the Roman Denarius system, or followed a local standard. How should these values be recorded?
We are migrating to a new format to store face values (denominations). The possible face values are now stored in a database. When adding a new coin to the catalogue, you will select within a list of all the denominations for the selected currency instead of entering the text and numeric face value as free text.
There are multiple goals for this change:
Better quality: With a curated list of denominations, there is less risk of mistake than a free text and correction of errors apply for all applicable coins at once.
Enhanced data: We can stored more data associated to each face value. This can be useful to store both the name of the currency in the language of the country of the coins and in English for example.
Easier translation: A central list of denominations can be translated more easily. It can also be translated even for languages such as Spanish (and German and Italian in the future) which don't have translations for each coin.
The initial list of face values has been built based on the face values for all the items in the catalogue. While the website has already been updated to use this list instead of free texts, we are currently working on removing the duplicates and adjusting the invalid values. Please bear with us during this lengthy process. Once we are in a better position, we can work together in improving the data (adding the name of the denomination in the language of the country of the coin, fixing remaining errors, etc.)
There is currently no impact on the display of the catalogue (except for the correction of errors detected during the ongoing process of verifying and correcting the database of denominations). The only impact is on adding or modifying items of the catalogue.
Note that, unlike currencies for example, in case a denomination is missing, you can still add it without asking for the addition of the denomination a priori. You can select “other” and specify the face value. This will create a new face value automatically, that will be reviewed and enhanced a posteriori.
New selection of the denomination when editing the catalogue
Hi, in the drop-down list of values for Spain (notgeld banknotes) I have added the value of 3 Pesetas that did not exist. I clicked on others and wrote "3 Pesetas (3)". When I enter another banknote, the new value of 3 Pesetas appears in the drop-down list, but not in the place that corresponds to its face value, but at the end of the list (see image).
My question is: Have I entered the new value "3 Pesetas (3)" correctly or should I have only entered "3 Pesetas" without the value "(3)"? Could it be that this new value appears at the end of the list until the website is refreshed and then it will appear in its correct location, or is it a page error?
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
There was a bug which caused a delay in refreshing the order of banknotes after an update of the denomination. This is fixed. In case of change in the database of denominations, the order will be updated during the night.
Est-ce la même chose pour les dénominations qui n'existent plus ou pas ? Est-ce qu'il y aura une mise à jour la nuit ?
Ex: 100 cents ou 200 cents du Canada
Ex: 1 ½ dollar ou 3 ½ dollars du Canada
Québécois
Ancienement, référent du Canada / FYI former referee for Canada
There was a bug which caused a delay in refreshing the order of banknotes after an update of the denomination. This is fixed. In case of change in the database of denominations, the order will be updated during the night.
Est-ce la même chose pour les dénominations qui n'existent plus ou pas ? Est-ce qu'il y aura une mise à jour la nuit ?
Ex: 100 cents ou 200 cents du Canada
Ex: 1 ½ dollar ou 3 ½ dollars du Canada
Oopss, I hadn't seen this post from Xavier. Thank you Québécois!!!
Tomorrow I will check if the drop down list has been updated (I'm sure it has) 😊
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
For the moment we are focusing on removing duplicates and fixing obvious errors, while we go through all the 40,000+ denominations.
I would prefer if you could wait for this process to be completed before reporting errors. Then, errors will be handled through the tickets of type “currency”, which will be extended for currencies and denominations.
How is that going by the way? Because especially for the big issuers spanning a huge timeframe, I couldn't really see the improvements of this new feature yet. In fact, for most, I didn't even notice anyone working on it. Still a huge amount of duplicates and bad sorting as before. I understand that it takes time to go through all these duplicate denominations, but I slowly get the feeling this is just one of these new features that nobody really cares about anymore because it requires a lot of work to implement properly.
And please lets remember that current situation is forcibly better than before, as at least we see errors and inconsistencies which were preexisting (and have a way to tackle them)
We edited a lot but still dozens of thousands of denominations to review… All the history of Numista is to be reviewed, its huge.
You can help by reporting some major issues you spot :-)
And please lets remember that current situation is forcibly better than before, as at least we see errors and inconsistencies which were preexisting (and have a way to tackle them)
We edited a lot but still dozens of thousands of denominations to review… All the history of Numista is to be reviewed, its huge.
You can help by reporting some major issues you spot :-)
Oh, I thought we should wait reporting errors until the process is complete (see citation of Xavier before). Which makes sense, because I see an error/inconsistencies regarding denominations basically every time I add anything into Netherlands, Italy, Ancient Greece, Papal States, etc.
Problem with denominations is time required to properly fix the situation that happened over the course of many years. (And that is after Xavier merged many thousands automatically, now we have 40000 different denominations) I just spent 20 minutes fixing a duplication problem in “Boii” issuer, and I am quite certain nobody would notice for considerable time.
And I must confess Italy and Papal States are specially a nighmare, i'm not enough knowledgable to sort out duplicates and variations of denominations alone here.
Its not only about spotting errors, but helping to solve
I'm sorry, but I have better stuff to do than posting pictures like this on the forum EVERY time I add a new coin.
Obviously, no referee/admin even wanted/had time to fix this list (and many more) yet. It's known that the new feature rolled out and that all the lists should be checked. So why would someone want to do it all of a sudden just because I posted this picture? If that was the case, the project would NEVER be finished.
I'm sorry, but I have better stuff to do than posting pictures like this on the forum EVERY time I add a new coin.
Obviously, no referee/admin even wanted/had time to fix this list (and many more) yet. It's known that the new feature rolled out and that all the lists should be checked. So why would someone want to do it all of a sudden just because I posted this picture? If that was the case, the project would NEVER be finished.
I fixed the Ionian denominations; sorry, I understand your frustration, but you can see how long it takes for just one currency (about 30 minutes here)… And we do many other things around :-)
We'll talk between admins the best way to handle this work
I'm sorry, but I have better stuff to do than posting pictures like this on the forum EVERY time I add a new coin.
Obviously, no referee/admin even wanted/had time to fix this list (and many more) yet. It's known that the new feature rolled out and that all the lists should be checked. So why would someone want to do it all of a sudden just because I posted this picture? If that was the case, the project would NEVER be finished.
I fixed the Ionian denominations; sorry, I understand your frustration, but you can see how long it takes for just one currency (about 30 minutes here)… And we do many other things around :-)
We'll talk between admins the best way to handle this work
Please don't misinterpret this as frustration. I was fine with the old system as well. I just find it odd that new projects get started and it is told that someone works on it, but then it seems like that isn't really the case. I wonder how many such unfinished projects there will be in a few years that nobody wants to work on anymore. It just confuses me, that's all.
And thanks for the cleanup, but I don't have to tell you that this is just a drop in the bucket…
Yes we create features and it takes loooong time to make the best of them…
For instance we still have many entries without their rulers (but we went from 5000 to 10000 ruling authorities in database in one year, so it moves forward). Same with mints, many are still missing/unused.
Problem with denominations is time required to properly fix the situation that happened over the course of many years…
Dénominations qui n'existent plus ou pas ? Est-ce qu'il y aura une mise à jour ?
Ex: 100 cents ou 200 cents du Canada
Ex: 1 ½ dollar ou 3 ½ dollars du Canada
Merci d'avance.
Peux tu me dire dans quelle devise ? Pointer les entrées correspondantes stp ?
Il n'y a qu'un choix pour le Canada soit “Canada - Dollar canadien (1858-présent)”
Ex: 100 cents ou 200 cents du Canada
Ex: 1 ½ dollar ou 3 ½ dollars du Canada
Ces valeurs n'existent pas au Canada… sauf peut-être pour des entrées dans la catégorie Exonumia mais il ne faudrait pas afficher ces choix pour la monnaie officielle du Canada, n'est-ce pas ?!?
Québécois
Ancienement, référent du Canada / FYI former referee for Canada
Ces dénominations sont utilisées pour des jetons (100 cents, 200 cents). Est-ce réellement un problème de les voir au moment de la création ou de la modification d'une pièce ?
Probablement il faudrait les cacher si on propose une recherche de pièces par dénomination dans le futur. Mais pour la page de modification cela ne me parait pas gênant.
Les jetons en question n'ont pas cours légal alors ils ne devraient pas, en premier lieu, utiliser la devise officielle du pays comme dénomination. C'est pour ça qu'on a supprimé la devise pour ces jetons dès la première journée de la mise en place de cette liste.
Sinon on risque de se retrouver avec une multitude d'entrées sans rapport avec la dénomination dans la liste déroulante, mais voyons si la situation va dégénérer au point de devenir un problème.
Une chose est certaine, ça pourrait induire en erreur les gens qui ne sont pas connaissant de la monnaie d'un pays.
Québécois
Ancienement, référent du Canada / FYI former referee for Canada
For the drop down list of Spanish Peseta (Notgeld) banknote values, I have created two new values (3 Pesetas and 4 Pesetas) and these are at the bottom of the list.
Many days have passed since I created the value of 3 Pesetas and it has not been in its normal place yet (it is still at the bottom of the list) and this causes the notes not to be displayed in the correct order:
Is it a particular bug or a general issue when you create new face values?
Many thanks for your attention 😉
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
For the drop down list of Spanish Peseta (Notgeld) banknote values, I have created two new values (3 Pesetas and 4 Pesetas) and these are at the bottom of the list.
Many days have passed since I created the value of 3 Pesetas and it has not been in its normal place yet (it is still at the bottom of the list) and this causes the notes not to be displayed in the correct order:
Is it a particular bug or a general issue when you create new face values?
