5 Francs 1865-1878 Belgium article inconsistencies

It seems that there are inconsistencies in the article
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces276.html

Edge description states the existence of the word "PROTEGE":
Lettering: DIEU PROTEGE LA BELGIQUE ***

Comments states:
Position A: [...] text on edge is NOT readable

Year distribution states:
1873 Position A; "PROTEGE" with larger spacing 33mm; star stands on one peak

There are 4 questions.

1. If the text is not readable, how is it possible to check a word on it?
2. If you read the year distribution comments for all years, you will find no option for "PROTEGE" other then mentioned. Then why it is mentioned, if no other differences are known?
3. Optional. What is the difference in terms 'dot' and 'point' in the year distribution? If these two words mean the same thing, does it worth to leave just one term, let's say 'dot'?
4. SCWC states:
1878 3 known

Does it mean, that there are till now 3 pieces or two others were melted recently that is why Numista catalog statement:
1878 1 In possession of National Bank of Belgium
is true?

1. Read that again. Or learn what position A and B actually means. If coin is put on desk with obverse up, edge lettering is not readable.

2. What?

3. It refers to differently placed dots/points. It makes perfect sense and would be not very understandable if it used same term.

4. Ask concerned referee about this.

1. The author of the text meant with "not readable" it's not readable because it's upside down, typical for one edge orientation.
2. For 1873 position A there is a version with normal spacing of "PROTEGE" and a version with larger spacing of "PROTEGE".
3. Correct. I made the same change request for https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3149.html. The referee accepted the change request but never changed the text.
4. The official Belgian catalogue states: only 1 copy with date 1878 is known (in the collection of the National Bank of Belgium).

Citeer: "Jarcek"​​​3. It refers to differently placed dots/points. It makes perfect sense and would be not very understandable if it used same term.

​First of all, sorry Jarek, I was busy with my answer while in the mean time yours came, so I only saw your answer after I posted mine.

Secondly: you are right concerning the dot/point. In this case, it's about two different things, a point after the F, like it's normal to put a point after an abbreviation, and a dot after the date.
In the case of the Australian coin it's about the same thing: a dot/point after "PENNY" or not a dot/point after "PENNY". In this case it's not consistent and even a bit stupid to talk about "no dot" after "PENNY" and "one point" after "PENNY".

As the result of the discussion.

1. The term "not readable" has nothing to do with the reality. In both cases of positions the text is clear and readable. It means, that the comment is enough to attribute the difference, no extra explanations are required in year distribution. Actually at this moment this question is SOLVED.

2. Based on the post Posted: 4-Aug-2017, 12:04AM we may suggest such corrections. Instead of
1873 22,340,959 Position A
1873 Position A; "PROTEGE" with larger spacing 33mm; star stands on one peak
1873 Position B; "PROTEGE" with larger spacing 33mm

we will have
1873 22,340,959 Position A; "PROTEGE" with normal spacing 22mm
1873 Position A; "PROTEGE" with larger spacing 33mm
1873 Position B; "PROTEGE" with larger spacing 33mm

Most probably description 'star stands on one peak' is part of the identification of difference position A and position It may be omitted for the same reason as the first question. More over there is no star on the edge! There are 3 stars there. All of them have the same orientation.

3. This explanation Posted: 3-Aug-2017, 11:36PM shows again that His Majesty has nothing to do with coins. He has not presented proofs of His linguistic skills till now which clearly means that He has not them. That is why the obvious fact that F and F. as well as 18XX and 18XX. use the same symbol fell out of His sight. He insists for example, that "1865." (with point)
means that symbol . is point, but the line
1866 variety with dot after year exists
means that symbol . is dot. And His Majesty successfully contradicts Himself as usual.

It is highly recommended to use the same term for the same symbol, let us say 'dot'. The modification with this request will be sent.

4. Contradiction between the sources of information is stated in the first post. No new information to solve the riddle was presented till now. Actually it is simple. In case some one knows another copy of 1878 outside the National Bank of Belgium is enough to use SCWC data, that is the quantity is 3.

From now on, please call me "His Majesty, The contradicting". I will answer no messages without this introduction. Thanks for understanding.

Looks like the first 3 questions were clarified and solved.
The only question, which is left is the forth:

4. SCWC states: 1878 3 known
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces276.html states 1 known

Being so small, in most cases it does not mean much for a collector what is the number here, but if we consider Numista as a catalog, it is worth to be sure about the numbers.

Oh boy,

that guy is again trying to split the hairs in his hand.

Ole