Possibility to add references

Hello,

I would like to propose that at least for some fields in Numista it is possible to add references. For an idea of how this could look:

As with many others, there is no reference for this particular piece, so the reliability of the information given on the sheet is questionable. E.g. where does the 101 mm figure for the diameter come from? I think it is important to have the possibility to cite auction lots, museum collections, and other sources, as well as the catalogues in the Numista references, to make information reliable.

Sometimes information comes from the references already listed, but sometimes sources are conflicting, see here an example:

N#3227

Often, I see formulations such as “some say” (10 Cash, 2½ Asses, Sextans, Solidus, 5 Shillings, etc). This formulation is not objective, lacks rigour, and is entirely unacceptable in any half-scientific context. Who says this? An anonymous blog, a book from the 19th century, Wikipedia, an auctioneer, a peer-reviewed scientific article? The source makes a big difference on the reliability of the information. The same questions apply when no source is given at all. 

Thank you

That would increase the professionalism index of Numista a lot!

The comments section could be used for referencing.

I have begun to add relevant references there on some banknote pages.

In some instances, the submitter has physically measured a coin or banknote - I did this with some additions i made to the catalogue. If the person submitting an image of banknote or coin that they themselves own, it is reasonable to accept their measurements of the dimensions.

I'm not a big fan of the usage proposed for the comment field since it is language dependant. You can have relevant info in there but it doesn't show if you are using the site in a different language. 😒

As Numista will be introducing more languages, this will become a real challenge for referees to maintain this field.

Maybe Xavier already has a solution for this but I didn't see it.

Regards,

Québécois

I'm not a big fan of the usage proposed for the comment field since it is language dependant. You can have relevant info in there but it doesn't show if you are using the site in a different language. 😒

This, I was not aware of - I view Numista in English.

A separate section for references would be the way to go then, which would be visible in all language versions.

Hibernia

Québécois

I'm not a big fan of the usage proposed for the comment field since it is language dependant. 

This, I was not aware of - I view Numista in English.

I often edit pages where there is comments in the lettering field who is language independent, so by definition you can’t put any comments. I do so because few referees are thinking of the English part of the site only.

I like the idea. I still need time to think about how to implement it, as it would be complex to record references for each source.

Perhaps a first step would be to have a dedicated section to record references / bibliography, and the addition of links from the other fields to the references could be reviewed later.

+1

It would increase the credibility of information listed on Numista at least an order of magnitude. Or at the very least making checking for errors or legacy issues far easier.

Now this request can be reformed to link coins,etc. to our registered literature.

It should not only be literature, some values especially physical ones often come from single specimen direct measurements. Which is not ideal but sometimes we don't have anything else and knowing that fact can help explain certain weight issues of our member's own coins vs catalog data.