Should 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. be allowed or removed?

The “words” 1st, 2nd, 3rd aren't English words. They don't have listings in the OED or dictionary.com. They are listed as abbreviations in Wiktionary. Since these abbreviations aren't listed as allowed abbreviations in the guidelines they shouldn't be used in Numista listings.

But they are used. Among other uses they are commonly used to identify portraits of rulers (1st portrait, 2nd portrait, …, 7th portrait, …). There are almost 5000 pages using 1st outside of lettering fields (not that all the lettering field uses are appropriate). There are over a thousand Numista pages that have all three of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

Should these terms be added to the list of approved abbreviations? If not, can the Robot replace them with the correct word? (Being careful not to change 21st to 2first.)

No, I think “1st, 2nd, 3rd” etc, are useful to all languages not just english, and therefore more useful for numista users in general than trying to translate etc. There is also MANY numista listings that have fractions instead of words, and these are also more useful than having them worded for example the many coins that represent “one quarter” of a currency being labelled as “¼”

“we discourage the use of abbreviations across the website, except in specific cases where their meaning is universally recognized and their usage adds clarity rather than confusion.”

Also are you asking for them to be added to the list of abbreviations, or to be removed entirely? Your argument starts off saying they shouldn't be used in numista listings and to have them changed,  but then you end it with “should these terms be added to the list of approved abbreviations”. I voted No as I feel that No represents not changing this overall, even though I am not sure what No means to your arguement. 

I'm sorry, I didn't consider the voting options when I made the post. I should have phrased it differently to make it obvious what an up or down vote means.

As a native English speaker I don't know if “3rd” is clearer than “third” for someone who has English as a second language.

Even if you know only basic English you should be familiar with ordinal numerals. It is also often used in titles and adding unnecessary letters seems contra-productive to me. 

They are also not true abbreviations but a kind of hybrid between number and word. The fact that letters are attached to the ciphers is just an characteristic of the English language (and quite a few others). Here a list for the supported (and to be supported) languages of Numista.

Dutch

1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, 6e, 7e, 8e, 9e, 10e (there are also 1ste, 2de etc.)

English

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th

French

1er / 1re, 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, 6e, 7e, 8e, 9e, 10e

German, Polish, Turkish

1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8., 9., 10.

Greek

1ος / 1η / 1ο, 2ος / 2η / 2ο, 3ος / 3η / 3ο, 4ος / 4η / 4ο, 5ος / 5η / 5ο, 6ος / 6η / 6ο, 7ος / 7η / 7ο, 8ος / 8η / 8ο, 9ος / 9η / 9ο, 10ος / 10η / 10ο

Italian

1º / 1ª, 2º / 2ª, 3º / 3ª, 4º / 4ª, 5º / 5ª, 6º / 6ª, 7º / 7ª, 8º / 8ª, 9º / 9ª, 10º / 10ª

Japanese

第1, 第2, 第3, 第4, 第5, 第6, 第7, 第8, 第9, 第10

Portuguese, Spanish

1.º / 1.ª, 2.º / 2.ª, 3.º / 3.ª, 4.º / 4.ª, 5.º / 5.ª, 6.º / 6.ª, 7.º / 7.ª, 8.º / 8.ª, 9.º / 9.ª, 10.º / 10.ª

Russian

1-й, 2-й, 3-й, 4-й, 5-й, 6-й, 7-й, 8-й, 9-й, 10-й
(suffix changes with gender/case in full grammar)

All in all I am for the continuation of their use and to add them to the sanctioned list of abbreviations.

Ordinals with numbers are not abbreviations in strict sense. They are not mentioned in the list of abbreviations, but in the General guidelines for all texts, section “5. Numbers and units”, which includes rules for writing integer, decimal, ordinal and large numbers.

bjherbison

The “words” 1st, 2nd, 3rd aren't English words. They don't have listings in the OED or dictionary.com.

I do not think any dictionary has entries for representations of numbers (Arabic, Roman, ordinals). I do not know in English, but in Spanish these are included in the orthography https://www.rae.es/ortografía/numerales-0 The orthography also includes abbreviations but in a different section.

davidhs

Ordinals with numbers are not abbreviations in strict sense. They are not mentioned in the list of abbreviations, but in the General guidelines for all texts, section “5. Numbers and units”, which includes rules for writing integer, decimal, ordinal and large numbers.

Thank you for pointing that out. This post was based on insufficient investigation. I cleared the “this is a bug” checkbox.

(I understand why the guidelines were split, but it was easier to search for things when the guidelines were in one large web page.)

davidhs

bjherbison

The “words” 1st, 2nd, 3rd aren't English words. They don't have listings in the OED or dictionary.com.

I do not think any dictionary has entries for representations of numbers (Arabic, Roman, ordinals). I do not know in English, but in Spanish these are included in the orthography https://www.rae.es/ortografía/numerales-0 The orthography also includes abbreviations but in a different section.

I understand what you are trying to say, but every useful dictionary has representations for numbers: one, two, three, …; first, second, third…. That's how you write numbers in English – any use of digits gets you away from strictly English text.