More reference numbers?

N#5310

the km220 (not a KM#) has 5 sub-numbers: km220.1 ; kmm220.2, km220.3 km220.4 and km220.5. Even if I change the km220 I will only have room for 4, since the Schoen# is also taken.

Please make room for at least 10 references for every coin.

I think, I've asked for that once before, but I couldn't find the reference.

EDIT: Found it, so I duplicated this message to the existing thread, but where is the answer from the deciders? 

Thanks in advance

I fully agree that more reference numbers are needed. However, this is not a good example. Your claim that KM#220 doesn't exist for Peru doesn't make sense. It is a perfectly acceptable number encompassing the subtypes KM#220.1 - KM#220.5. Just because subtypes exist doesn't make the main number obsolete. Where more reference numbers are needed is where we aren't following the catalogue and split up sub-types across different entries or combine several KM# into a single entry. Remember that text in year lines is now searchable, so anyone searching for Peru KM#220.1 will find this page.

ceh2019

I fully agree that more reference numbers are needed. However, this is not a good example. Your claim that KM#220 doesn't exist for Peru doesn't make sense. It is a perfectly acceptable number encompassing the subtypes KM#220.1 - KM#220.5. Just because subtypes exist doesn't make the main number obsolete. Where more reference numbers are needed is where we aren't following the catalogue and split up sub-types across different entries or combine several KM# into a single entry. Remember that text in year lines is now searchable, so anyone searching for Peru KM#220.1 will find this page.

km220 is a generic number invented when numista took over ALL the data from SCWC except the proper km# for the references. No need to discuss this eternally, this is about cataloging for coin collectors, not a philosophical club, just add more reference numbers!

Again this ridiculous statement that main numbers don't exist. 

It's all well and good saying “No need to discuss this eternally” but I simply don't agree with the assertion that KM#220 doesn't exist. There's no reason to add the subtypes in the list for this coin since all subtypes of KM#220 are in the same entry. If you do that, most people will be looking for a sixth sub-type somewhere else.

Yes, let's add the option for more reference numbers but let's use that new freedom wisely.

Idolenz

Again this ridiculous statement that main numbers don't exist. 

Intellectually, it does exist, but not in reality, hence you cannot find it in SCWC.

Well, I totally agree with Ole, the KM#220 does not exist. I understand that, as happens when there are many subtypes like in France or Russia due to the different mints, not all are indicated and only the matrix number is written, but in this case I think there should be the option of putting them all. It is a way to indicate, without having to open the page, that the page contains several subtypes in it.