Mints date to automaticcally display ranges coming from coins linked to it?

Hi everyone
Currently, a few mints have hardcoded dates (choson probably at creation) which often do not represent anymore the actual span covered by new coins linked to it.
For instance here: a mint created for a specific coin only minted for a few years, but which now encompass other ones minted centuries before.
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/mint.php?id=4870

I suggest dates displayed are those of the largest span calculated on all coins linked to it.

Are they the same mint or simply the same rough location?

Idolenz

Are they the same mint or simply the same rough location?

The same city only.

Little up here :-)

Paris mint is a good example of the issue, among others

It's not really about the city but the mint, a city can have multiple mints. 

If we would have a variable date range and a coin gets put under the wrong mint it could get really hard to tell if a coin doesn't belong under this certain mint.

We just need better proofs of operation dates with references on the mint pages.

Idolenz

… a city can have multiple mints. 

 Yes, example on this page - the two mints in Birmingham were used in 1918 and 1919 > 

N#578 

1918H 1918KN  1919H 1919KN 

H https://en.numista.com/catalogue/mint.php?id=18 

KN https://en.numista.com/catalogue/mint.php?id=31 

I feel we dont have same usecases for this field: working on early medieval coins, I never (or very rarely) have proofs of operation and/or precise location (adress).

But I think my suggestion works also with modern usecases, for which I guess instead of putting just a city name you create a mint with actual name (like "Monnaie de Paris" in france), meaning multiple mints can operate in same geographical city name. Generating automatticcally the date range would be more efficient I believe, qs it would help to spot bad mint attribution for instance, dont you think?

[…] qs it would help to spot bad mint attribution for instance, dont you think?

Could you elaborate on this? Bad data entry would make things worse to spot them in my opinion.

I was guessing that seeing that “Monnaie de Paris” have daterange “750-2023” would help see that we have one coin in year 750 and then would help to spot this bad attribution for instance. But it's challengeable

Currently I fix those bad attributions “by hand” and mainly by luck (bad attributions where coins are linked to antic “Massalia” instead of medieval and modern “Marseille” for instance.