Date or not to date Replicas and Modern Counterfeit

I thought, but can not find it, I saw where a discussion in the forums stated that replicas should not be dated on the dateline. Main reason being is that it affected the My Collection timeline. I can not find that discussion. I have been requesting that the dates on Replicas be removed from the date line on new submissions and placed in general comments. Example 1, Example 2, Example 3

On the Modern counterfeits I have a different opinion. There are many examples where multiple years of a particular item were counterfeited. So on those I think the dates should be included on the date line. Example 1, Example 2, Example 3

I hope someone can find the previous discussion and  add it here. I also look forward to responses to whether or not these items should be dated on the dateline.

Here I think but no resolution.  

Guidelines only get you to here:

If the year shown on the coin is different from the year(s) when it was minted, select “No date” (ND) and enter the actual year(s) of minting in the two fields.
For coins with uncertain dates of issue, select “No date” (ND) and enter the date range in the two fields.

Best would be the option; date that is written on the coin [should be ignored in the date range] (actual date(range)).

For example: 1899 (1955)

But other then modifying the date with the D button (which is only available to the referee and higher) I don't know if that is possible to get otherwise.

But also only list replicas that are I visually marked like with a modern date or a text  like replica. All these modern numismatic fakes should not be in the catalog (at least not in the main one).

I agree with this:

 

JLHare

I have been requesting that the dates on Replicas be removed from the date line on new submissions and placed in general comments. Example 1, Example 2, Example 3

• To write the actual issuing year in the year line. If the actual issuing year is known but is not on the object, write “ND (issuing year)”. If the actual issuing year is unknown, write “ND”.
• To write the year of the original object in the comments of the page.

rsirian1

Guidelines only get you to here:

If the year shown on the coin is different from the year(s) when it was minted, select “No date” (ND) and enter the actual year(s) of minting in the two fields.
For coins with uncertain dates of issue, select “No date” (ND) and enter the date range in the two fields.

When I translated these FAQs 

• coins https://en.numista.com/help/year-137.html
• banknotes https://en.numista.com/help/year-month-day-180.html

into Spanish, I found some differences between English and French versions, and things that were not clear (I published in the translation forum). 

The case of replicas and counterfeits could also be mentioned.

This topic should be made clearer in the FAQ.

The series of replicas https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?se=8614&ct=exonumia&p=1 has two objects in Numista. Both have the year of the original coin in the replica, and the actual issuing year is 2002. One use “original year (actual year)” and the other “ND (actual year)”.

This issue is still unsolved.

@Xavier and admins… Could you clarify the guidelines for dates in coins https://en.numista.com/help/year-137.html and banknotes https://en.numista.com/help/year-month-day-180.html in the cases of counterfeits and replicas?

Also see the issues founded and posted in translators forum. https://en.numista.com/forum/topic149649.html