Multiple KM codes for a coin page

In many cases, we have that a Numista page corresponds to coins with different KM codes (in general when the differences between two coins with different codes are minimal).
For example,
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1314.html. where we have in the same page coins with the two codes KM 28.1. and 28.2
Unfortunately, these cases are managed in two different ways:

• Only the root code is reported, and as in this case you see that the coin page list KM 28
  
• The specific codes are listed, for example as in this case
  https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces826.html
  

It could be nice, if a global decision is made, suggesting to use the first or the second way
(Personally, I prefer the second way, because it is more useful to find a coin in Numista)

All KM numbers in the year lines should be included in the References section. Non-existent KM numbers (in this case KM# 28) should never be used. Note that for this example a search of the real KM's 28.1 or 28.2 won't return anything. You can only find this coin by using the non-valid KM# 28.

To me (never a fan of KM#) KM#28.1 and KM#28.2 would seem to be variants of KM#28 rather than separate numbers. Hence, given that there is no KM#28.3, when KM#28.1 and KM#28.2 are grouped together, I would expect that group to be called KM#28. If it were called KM#28.1 and KM#28.2, I'd be wondering where KM#28.3 was. However, either method should work technically and I have no problem with an agreeed common approach.
What bothers me is that, because year line comments don't appear in searches, you can't search for KM#28.1 or KM#28.2. This can be fixed by having KM#28.1 and KM#28.2 in the text of the comments but we should be able to make this work better. There's a suggestion doing the rounds at the moment that we have an additional field for variants. Perhaps this is the answer?

I am very much against this change, as there would be many pages that now have dozens of numbers that only list minor differences (like this example: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9096.html).

We only have limited slots for references and they should be reserved for actual references not different numbers of one.
I would like to have a system were you can select your reference and can add any number of sub-numbers or in the case of banknotes where right now we often combine minor security updates/ minimal design changes under one page.

KM# 196.1;196.2;196.3;196.4; ...
XYZ# 55a; 78

Απόσπασμα: "Idolenz"​We only have limited slots for references and they should be reserved for actual references not different numbers of one.
​I would like to have a system were you can select your reference and can add any number of sub-numbers or in the case of banknotes where right now we often combine minor security updates/ minimal design changes under one page.
​
​KM# 196.1;196.2;196.3;196.4; ...
​XYZ# 55a; 78

​I totally agree. This, in addition to a dedicated field for photos of varieties, would be very useful.

Απόσπασμα: "Some_Nerd"​I am very much against this change, as there would be many pages that now have dozens of numbers that only list minor differences (like this example: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9096.html).

​What change? There is no change, just a suggestion that guidelines be created, whatever they may be. Guidelines are not hard and fast rules and there will be cases where it makes more sense to not follow the guidelines than to follow them. In the case of your example, it would be impossible to list all the km numbers in the reference section.

Currently, in many cases, you have all the KM codes for the coins on a page, and it is quite useful and convenient for the users of Numista.

In the most complex cases, you have 4 numbers for a page (in general 2) and you can write in this way

KM 28.1. 28.2. 28.3
so you don't mess too much with the view of the coin page

Otherwise, if you just write 28
you dont't have a way to distinguish it from the case where there exists only the code 23 (and no variants are existing).

Furthermore, to make things more complex, in many other cases you have a page for each code

so 13.1. is a page

as well as 213.2

and still more complex are the cases as. 40a. 40b 40c. 40a.1 40a.2 ...

I think that the catalog should help people to locate the coins when doing a search, otherwise it will be better to avoid to show the codes in the short view of the coins

Hi
This is quite a problem with Chinese Empire coins, where you almost always have multiple references in coin year descritpions, which cannot be found (though I may not be sufficient enough in using search engine), just by searching by a reference (eg. Hartill#22.596), as stated in the box with coin-year-description. Here one example:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?r=Hartill%2322.596&ct=coin&im1=&im2=&tb=y&tc=y&tn=y&tp=y&tt=y&cat=y&ru=&ca=3&no=&v=&i=&b=&d=&u=&a=&dg=&m=&f=&t=&w=&mt=&g=&se=&c=&wi=&sw=

If search engine allows searching also within the above mentioned boxes, I guess much would be solved.

How about adding reference codes in such way Hartill#22.590-598? This could probably also be a good basis for search engine upgrade.

I am also using this principle of adding references with some Slovenian army tokens/medals. Most of the exonumia in Švajncer catalogue is numbered with only one number, as there is only one picture of certain coin. Some coins have obverse and reverse pictures inside and in this case each one is numbered separately, hence I add the reference like this Švajncer# 171-172. See here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/exonumia149012.html


LP