Introduction of the notion of “Language independent field”

Hello,

Please can you edit the guideline to introduce the notion of “Language independent field”.

Currently we have in several section like the 3.5.1:

Mintmark

• Specify the mint letter(s) in the mintmark field. Other Unicode characters that closely resemble the mintmark may also be used.
• Do not describe mintmarks in words.
• Do not use the mintmark field to record Officinae, die letters, or other types of marks, such as the mintmaster, engraver, or assayer marks.

I tried to correct a described mintmark and my correction request what rejected, that’s ok but whatever the referee read or not the guideline for me it’s worrying, not if he didn’t read it (it’s a lot and you cant remember everything) but it mean that this referee didn’t get the point of language independent field.

I was content manager for a website in 9 languages (so I had 8 others colleagues in others countries ) and this notion is key to do your job properly.

In Numista we currently have 3 web: EN, FR, ES.

To simplified the work as much as possible we have 2 differents kind of values field:

 - Language independant field, are display in all languages the same way. It will be never translated and can't bear any translatable words, these fields are commonly used for values such as dimensions or lettering.

Exemple:

 - Language dependant field, are field that are display for one language only, description, comments, when I fill it in french it doesn’t pop up on the English web. These are value that need to be adapt for each language.

Exemple:

What happens when you don’t understand the difference? You describe « Éclaire » as a mint mark of a coin, and even if the french audience will understand it, you will display a word that isn’t understandable in English and in Spanish in both web… making the life of readers more fun by letting them guess from wich language this foreign word come from.

So, please make a note of it somewhere in the guideline, and highlight what are the language independent field event if it should be obvious…

Thanks for your consideration.

You shouldn't describe anything or substitute like ‘(signature)/(symbol) etc.)’ in the lettering fields/mintmark, only what's  written on the coin/note belongs there.

True! I often make CR to remove comments in the lettering field, especially in Exonumia to remove comments like: date, serial number,  mintmark ect. 

I keep deleting comments from lettering field even on new items, it’s urgent to put that in place …

I keep deleting comments from lettering field even on new items, it’s urgent to put that in place …

Following this thread, this one and new CR I can see that referees are not well aware of the consequences to mix language independant field with language dependant values …

Also I rephrase a bit the initial thread to make it clearer.

To be honest, I think most people understand the notion, but sadly not everyone seems always to agree about the cruciality to respect it…

Compendium

To be honest, I think most people understand the notion, but sadly not everyone seems always to agree about the cruciality to respect it…

I really hope you're wrong …

I let you imagine the mess if we decide to go for an Russian or Chinese Numista …

One of my last corrections:

Moving the comment: (1978 without the inscription "QUEEN'S JUBILEE")

From Lettering to description …

I was Content manager for 5 years and when you take the time to explain the difference between this 2 field to your internal custoers your life become much more easier as instead of re-working each feedback you just need to approve them :-)

Indomini16

 

One of my last corrections:

Moving the comment: (1978 without the inscription "QUEEN'S JUBILEE")

From Lettering to description …

Description should be only for the item depicted in the entry. Variants should be described in comments and/or yearlines, not here

The Language field should be a separate thing - as so many languages use certain alphabets & scripts.

Latin alphabets are the most common.

Aidan.

This one, who have been approved today, have a comment on the lettering field …

We really need to bring more attention on this topic.

Indomini16

This one, who have been approved today, have a comment on the lettering field …

We really need to bring more attention on this topic.

Thanks for spotting, I forwarded to the referree :-)

Indomini16

This one, who have been approved today, have a comment on the lettering field …

We really need to bring more attention on this topic.

Your are right Indomini16. I correct the lettering field. 

This suggestion is related: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic132467.html

Perhaps will solve some problems…

A new one approved yesterday…

We really need to bring more attention on this topic.

Indomini16

A new one approved yesterday…

We really need to bring more attention on this topic.

Sent a note to the referee, thanks

Compendium

Indomini16

A new one approved yesterday…

We really need to bring more attention on this topic.

Sent a note to the referee, thanks

Done, many thanks to both!!!

A new one approved today…

We really need to bring more attention on this topic.

Indomini16

A new one approved today…

We really need to bring more attention on this topic.

Where is the issue here?

Compendium

Indomini16

A new one approved today…

We really need to bring more attention on this topic.

Where is the issue here?

Uniface on the reverse was on lettering field, it seems it was corrected.

Another one of those days.

Indomini16

Another one of those days.

Indeed, but what action do you expect from all those cases you spot everyday? Best action in my opinion is to submit a CR, this way referees are more and more aware of the issue. I'm not sure guidelines would help here. Maybe a special warning on CR form when editing a language dependent field?

Compendium

Indeed, but what action do you expect from all those cases you spot everyday? Best action in my opinion is to submit a CR, this way referees are more and more aware of the issue. I'm not sure guidelines would help here. Maybe a special warning on CR form when editing a language dependent field?

I expect we give clear guideline to referee. I do CR and some of them are rejected.

I want to make sur that referee understand the consequences to let comments in lettering. A warning and the notion of Language independent field should be set in the guideline. 
This is a basic topic and I don’t understand why we don’t invest more effort to make it obvious for our referee team at least.

Comment is never an option in a language independent field.

Indomini16

Compendium

Indeed, but what action do you expect from all those cases you spot everyday? Best action in my opinion is to submit a CR, this way referees are more and more aware of the issue. I'm not sure guidelines would help here. Maybe a special warning on CR form when editing a language dependent field?

I expect we give clear guideline to referee. I do CR and some of them are rejected.

I want to make sur that referee understand the consequences to let comments in lettering. A warning and the notion of Language independent field should be set in the guideline. 
This is a basic topic and I don’t understand why we don’t invest more effort to make it obvious for our referee team at least.

 

Comment is never an option in a language independent field.

please appeal the rejection and send Jarek a notif about it. Appeals are great opportunity to discuss real situations with Referees

A new one.

Just do a CR and stop posting every occurence you find in the forum.