Unclear remark in Canadian 1 cent 1985 [solved]

There is a comment in year distribution of 1 cent Canada
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces427.html

The last line for 1985 states:
1985 Unknown variation. Qty included in the above

What does it mean?

Note about the pointed '5'. The catalog mentions it just ones:

1985 157,037 Proof, straight/blunt 5
1985 Pointed 5. Qty included in the above

Does it mean that the catalog suggests to consider the mintage of the circulation coin as part of the proof issue? Or if it insists that the coin is in proof, why it does not describes it in the common condition, where it is well known and easily can be got?

Both 1985 lines with "Qty included in the above" comment refers to 1985 771,772,500 Straight/blunt 5 line. I would be they were originally created just below this line, but system sorts years alphabetically by comments, so Proof line jumped above them, and now it looks as those two lines refered to Proof version.

The technical mistakes can be corrected, it is obvious. It is just strange that the Numista team member yet had a lot of time to write here unnecessary excuses and does not move his finger to arrange the lines properly.

The point was stated in the first post. That is

The last line for 1985 states:
1985 Unknown variation. Qty included in the above

So 'Unknown variation', what it is? Obviously it is a personal note and does not belong to the catalog (in catalog the term "variety" is used) . Should be clarified or deleted forever.

I could go on the rant like Red Bird from all these puns at me. But I wont, I do not see what problem do you have with me, especially when I am answering your pseudo-problems.

I already explained to you why lines cannot be rearanged, instead of even acnowledging that OBVIOUS fact, you point a finger that I have a time to write excuses... What do you think? That I can rewrite whole system of Alphabetical sorting of year lines? No I cannot.

Moreover, you can write to Canada Referee about Unknown variety line. It is not a personal note. I believe it is there because we have no graphical explanation of those 5's, so line was added for those who are not sure. Once we have the graphics, it can be deleted.

It seems, that the remark was clarified.
For it was proved already, that the Numista member has no desire to execute his direct duties; the corrections were conducted instead of him.

I guess you did not understood that we do this on voluntary basis.

Hi Alexander,

Thanks for your post. Jarcek has kindly merged the "unknown variety" date with the much more common straight 5 variation.

I hope this addresses your concerns.

Please feel free to message me with any questions or comments.

Yes, exactly, there is no unclear remark now.

It is almost solved. The tiny note to make the English version as correct as the article is in French was left and it is on moderation again.