Let's talk formatting "standards"

I wasn't a very regular visitor on Numista in the past couple of years but seeing the banknotes finally landing here may give me a "new life" and inspiration to visit and contribute more often. I've already migrated my collection from Colnect as much as was possible and started adding new entries and modifying existing with better pictures, etc.

I've noticed lots of inconsistencies all over the place so am trying to bring some order to at least the entries for the notes that I have in my collection. Yesterday, I've made lots of very small change requests for Afghanistan notes (that I have in my collection) with regards to the comments on the year lines - I've changes Pick numbers on those lines to follow the same format, e.g. P#50a.1, and used semi-colon as a separator, e.g. P#22; Specimen.

I'd like to hear what others think about this, specifically, the use of # in the Pick numbers (I've seen this around as a more common way of formatting, rather than a hyphen; also, the main Pick number is displayed as P# xx).

I was also thinking that maybe we can use a Sig: prefix for the signature(s) part of the comment. Is it really important to fully spell out signature or signatures? I think it would be quite obvious what Sig: mean and will save a bit space (and some of the comments will get long, especially with signee names and other important notes).

Also, want to suggest not using and or & or anything else for multiple signatures but rather just a comma - ,

And another piece of the comments - date. I'd suggest YYYY-MM-DD, meaning 4-digit year, 2-digit month (with leading 0 if needed) and 2-digit day (also with leading 0 if needed). Using hyphens for separators seems to be a more common case (even though I personally would prefer a slash /).

Pick numbers don't have points, that's some made up Colnect sh... eh stuff.
P#50a1 for your example.

I am a proponent of the # too but only because I use a hyphen after the reference and a semicolon for more in depth details:
P#1 - detail; more exact detail

For dates in the comment I would write the formats that are on the note, but because most formats are not sorting friendly I wouldn't put them in a position where they would throw the year lines around (especially in the case same value year lines).

Citeer: "smoked_caramel"​And another piece of the comments - date. I'd suggest YYYY-MM-DD, meaning 4-digit year, 2-digit month (with leading 0 if needed) and 2-digit day (also with leading 0 if needed). Using hyphens for separators seems to be a more common case (even though I personally would prefer a slash /).

​Ummm.... most of every listing on Numista that includes the date and the month are already formatted MM/DD/YYYY. Also, I add signatures without saying it. E.g. (Clark/Rios)

Citeer: "Idolenz"​Pick numbers don't have points, that's some made up Colnect sh... eh stuff.
​P#50a1 for your example.

I agree. Colnet doesn't have the most reliable information especially when it comes to pick numbers.

A decision has not been made on date format. I'm for consensus on that, and as a USA resident, I accept that I will inevitably have to change.

The Pick numbers will not be using hyphens. P# 123 is the pattern.

Citeer: "Idolenz"​Pick numbers don't have points, that's some made up Colnect sh... eh stuff.
​P#50a1 for your example.

​Oh, I didn't even know that. I used that as an example though so I'm in favour of dropping an "illegal" period.

Citeer: "Idolenz"I am a proponent of the # too but only because I use a hyphen after the reference and a semicolon for more in depth details:
P#1 - detail; more exact detail

The reason why I'd "push" for a single/consistent separator is that if anyone want to re-format their own data after exporting parsing a single separator is easier than 2 different ones. Also, there are some hyphenated names (for the signatures) and, again, parsing those post-export may be tricky.

Citeer: "Idolenz"For dates in the comment I would write the formats that are on the note, but because most formats are not sorting friendly I wouldn't put them in a position where they would throw the year lines around (especially in the case same value year lines).

Yeah, good point I think but what about this Angolan note - would you write it as is - 10 DE JUNHO DE 1973? Also...

Citeer: "CGeorge"Ummm.... most of every listing on Numista that includes the date and the month are already formatted MM/DD/YYYY

I've seen at least half-a-dozen different date formats in the past few days while entering my banknotes. And what about French "side" of the pages?

Using YYYY/MM/DD will not cause any sorting issue as it will get sorted chronologically while MM/DD/YYYY won't.

Citeer: "CGeorge"Also, I add signatures without saying it. E.g. (Clark/Rios)

I'd rather have a Sig: prefix, just to be more explicit cause the names by themselves may confuse some (hopefully very little fraction of) people. As for the separator for multiple signatures, some names may be written in full (with first, middle, last names) and also may be hyphenated, so using a separator with no spaces may be visually confusing when the comment gets (or not) wrapped up into multiple lines. Using comma-space, like "Clark, Rios", will satisfy those cases.

Citeer: "Oklahoman"​The Pick numbers will not be using hyphens. P# 123 is the pattern.

Is the space after # part of the pattern? I'd say P#123 is better than P# 123, but it's just my personal preference. Consistency would tramp that.

The space is generated on the creation page when the catalog # is created. So if you dont include it other places there is no consistency. That is upsetting to a lot of folks here. So over the past couple of weeks I have adjusted for the sale of consistency. Include the space.

So, just to be clear you would like the pick number to be displayed as P# XX and not P-XX

Correct?

Citeer: "Oklahoman"​The space is generated on the creation page when the catalog # is created. So if you dont include it other places there is no consistency. That is upsetting to a lot of folks here. So over the past couple of weeks I have adjusted for the sale of consistency. Include the space.

​Well, technically catalog prefix and actual number are stored separately in Numista database. The space is there in the page only because it is rendered/composed that way (and can be changed if Xavier wants to). actually I just looked at the source code of the page and it is ... um ... "ugly" - there are tons of useless space sequences (that browsers render as a single space anyways). For example, of that Angolan note I linked to above, there are actually 17 spaces between # and 105 (well, to be absolutely correct there is one space, than new line symbol, and than 16 more spaces). Also, there are 16 spaces following number 105 (and they all are rendered to nothing by the browser).

Citeer: "smoked_caramel"Yeah, good point I think but what about this Angolan note - would you write it as is - 10 DE JUNHO DE 1973?

I only cared for the date in the year line comments to distinguish the variants Your example doesn't need a date because it's only one year.
For example if the note has a date 12/04/65 I wouldn't put 1965-12-04 in the year line comment.
Then we will get with a high chance 'my note isn't listed' threads in the forum.
The DD-MM-YYYY and MM-DD-YYYY confusion is bad enough.

I'm going to hold with submitting change requests for these, for now. Let's wait (it's a late evening for me now) and see what others think.

Idolenz, CGeorge, Oklahoman, thanks for your feedback so far.
Let's hope we can get to a solid and consistent common ground and start applying the standard soon.

Citeer: "Idolenz"​

Citeer: "smoked_caramel"Yeah, good point I think but what about this Angolan note - would you write it as is - 10 DE JUNHO DE 1973?
​
​

​I only cared for the date in the year line comments to distinguish the variants Your example doesn't need a date because it's only one year.
​For example if the note has a date 12/04/65 I wouldn't put 1965-12-04 in the year line comment.
​Then we will get with a high chance 'my note isn't listed' threads in the forum.
​The DD-MM-YYYY and MM-DD-YYYY confusion is bad enough.

​My thinking is that having a single format is less confusing as lots of different people are creating and modifying entries. Yes, my example may not be a good one but I'm sure there are notes which need date to be specified in the year line comment but will be in a "weird" format.

The format I use when adding variants is P# 101c; as 101a, Jones/Johnson, prefix A, red overprint VICTORY (no P# before a reference to another Pick number comment; using semicolon after Pick number; slash between signature names [not generally spelling our or abbreviating signature]; comma between other elements; small letters for terms such as serial number, prefix, specimen; all caps for quoted information), I have started following Pick date format 1.12.2019 (1 December 2019) although I let established variants in lists as is.

If the format makes sense but does not follow my preferred format I do not change unless I am adding many more variants. If I can't make sense of the variants as listed or they could have changed in more recent catalogs, I leave alone. I do not leave all the made up Pick numbers like P# 101a.2 unless I am at a total loss for the arrangement and cannot make it correspond to Pick numbers. I do not recommend a hyphen between signature names because I have had compound names where a single person hyphenates the name (J. Oscar-Bruno/A. Hypotenuse) and I would be aware that there may be multiple persons with same last name so initials are needed in some cases (Jones/A. Dam and Jones/B. Dam).

The biggest problems I have seen (other than just messes of variants) are the entry of question marks for dates and the use of ND (used when no need, not used when needed, if you know an actual range of dates it is not possible to enter without ND.

Will

I agree with your ideas but I format differently. I think Xavier needs to create a standard format for listing comments before it gets out of hand. I saw one note with 4 listings, 2 with P# XX and two with P-XX. Very confusing.... we need a guideline.

The standard for P# is being applied. Edits to correct P# with no spaces are being accepted.

Citeer: "Oklahoman"​The standard for P# is being applied. Edits to correct P# with no spaces are being accepted.

​I will go back and correct where I put P-XX

Ugh. This Is a lot of corrections to make

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note202474.html

Thanks again for all the feedback, guys! It would be definitely easier and simple if Xavier just tells us what the format is and everyone follows. But I don't think it is fair (at this point at least) to burden him with yet another request. As was said many time before, Numista catalog is a community thing! So in my mind defining a standard for the comments can be done by the Community. Thus the reason for me starting this thread.

A few thoughts based on the resent posts...

Pick Numbers:
I think we mostly agree on the format of the Pick numbers:
capital P prefix + # sign + primary number + lowercase letter + secondary number
- Primary number may start with a capital letter;
- Lowercase letter and secondary number are optional
- No spaces anywhere

Examples: P#123, P#123a, P#123b1, P#M12

Side-note: I've heard that there are automated triggers that Xavier (and admins?) can use to automate some changes. So I suspect that replacing P-123 with P#123 can be automated that way and will prevent a flood of change requests that admins will have to deal with.

Separators:
Being a software engineer I'd suggest using a single separator to distinguish parts of a comment. If any automated processing needs to be done by anybody for any reason, personal or not, it is much easier to handle a single separator rather than different ones. Again from my personal professional experience a semi-colon, or rather semi-colon+space - would be a good choice. My next option would probably be a pipe sign with spaces on both sides, i.e. ' | '.

Another option (that I'm not a fan of but will be fine if accepted): use a hyphen (with spaces on both sides) after Pick number only and a different separator for the rest of comment parts.

Dates:
Definitely agree that dates should be part of the comment when absolutely necessary. As for the format, again from my professional experience, a format like Year+Month+Day causes less issues than any other order. Using a slash or a hyphen does not make much difference except for hyphenated signatures so my preference would be slash / over hyphen -.

Signatures:
Personally I'd rather see a prefix like Sig: (rather than Signature: or Signatures:) but also would be fine if we have no prefix at all. As for the separator when multiple signatures are present, again based on my professional experience, I'd suggest using a separator followed by a space - this will help immensely when long comments are wrapped into multiple lines. My suggestion is a comma+space. Don't think slash+space will be visually appealing. I'd probably be fine with an ampersand (but still with spaces around it), i.e. ' & '.

Other things:
I'd prefer each comment part to start with a capital letter, e.g. P#1s; Specimen; Security strip; Purple border
But not feeling too strong about this and would be perfectly fine with all lowercase option.

There is also one other thing that I haven't mentioned yet. I've seen lots of pretty long comments that are wrapped across multiple lines in an extremely ugly way. Here is an example. So I think there is a need to force line breaks in the comments, e.g. define a special symbol (or sequence) that will get replaced with a line break for presentation purposes. If I was a developer of this I'd pick a double-pipe ||, or maybe a double-slash //.

Citeer: "CGeorge"​
​​I will go back and correct where I put P-XX
​Ugh. This Is a lot of corrections to make
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note202474.html

​This is exactly the case where I'd look into an automated trigger to correct all these "under the hood" without change requests. Don't touch it yet - let's finalize this whole thing first.

So would this be a correct example for what you want?

P#23a; Issued 2019/5/28; Sig: Clark, Rios; Security strip

I personally think the info is a little smashed together and hard to read. The format I have been using is EX:

Issued 2019/5/28 --- (Clark/Rios) --- (Security strip) --- (P#23a)

I don't care which order the info should be in. I will change my format when there are guidelines like yours.

Citeer: "CGeorge"​So would this be a correct example for what you want?
​
​P#23a; Issued 2019/5/28; Sig: Clark, Rios; Security strip
​
​I personally think the info is a little smashed together and hard to read. The format I have been using is EX:
​
​Issued 2019/5/28 --- (Clark/Rios) --- (Security strip) --- (P#23a)
​
​I don't care which order the info should be in. I will change my format when there are guidelines like yours.

​Yes, your example is almost exactly what I'm proposing. The only change would be in the date - 2019/05/28
As for the way you've done it so far, I don't think triple hyphen and especially brackets add much value but rather make the comment longer.

The P# that identifies should not have a lower case letter. That division of the Pick number is for dateline comments.

Spaces will be included at this time. The format is P# 123

No "pipe" signs. The standard is ; at this time.

The master referees are in communication with Xavier. When we know you will know as well.

Pick numbers will not have spaces, (edited because I meant to say Pick numbers will have spaces), and will only use lower case letters as a subdivision indicator in date line comments. ; is the numista standard for coins, it will be used in banknotes.

I am not clear with this sig: business. I will continue to approve sig. Or signature spelled out.


If anyone has questions they are welcome to email Sulfur or myself, the master banknote refs. Feedback is beneficial to the site, but this thread is not setting the standard. It is only discussing.

Citeer: "Oklahoman"​More "pipe" signs. The standard is ;

​Hello all, sorry to be late to the discussions but I have been adding many year line comments so thought I should add some input.

Whilst I understand that a semi-colon ; is the preferred separator for listing titles, for example, I think we should consider the full stop, or period . , as a separator for the year line comments.

One reason for this would be that it is the standard adopted by Krause SCWPM and would make life easier when copying and pasting from a PDF, for example.

With regards to date format, I believe we generally try to stay with English (UK) rather than English (US) on Numista, so the format would be dd.mm.yyyy. Surprisingly for an American publication, this is also the format adopted by Krause.

Just my two penn'orth ;)

Any complete dates we give should always have a version rendered precisely as written on the note IMO. We can have an all-numeric or English-rendered date as well, but I the original is most important.

If I have note that says "1 GRUDNIA 1988", how am I supposed to know that GRUDNIA is the Polish for December? And if I don't know that, how do I decide what line I want? What if the text is in Arabic or Khmer or Japanese and not easily identifiable to a non-speaker of those languages as a date?

In the same way, if the date is rendered using digits other than Western Arabic digits, we should put a rendering in the original. The note pictured here, for example, should have "٢٠٠٤/١٢/٣٠" included in the comment for that date.

In the same way, with coins, if the date is given as ١٤٣٥ or ๒๕๕๖ or התשע״ג, then we will write "١٤٣٥" or "๒๕๕๖"or "התשע״ג" in the comment so that the user can easily identify what they have. Even if the user can't understand what the date says or means, they can at least compare with what's on the coin and go from there.

I am really not sure where we agree on this. We dont seem to agree or have consensus, but you are saying we do.

There will be spacing in Pick numbers for now.

There will be the use of ";" for now.

To abbreviate signature and then use it with a colon instead of a "." Or spelled out is your idea, and one I am not comfortable with at this time.

Your logic that the date format you prefer is the best is actually a bit hard to take. dd/mm/yyyy is every bit as valid as yyyy/mm/dd. And frankly, even when Xavier sets the final standard, it will not match the dates as used on huge numbers of notes from different nations. Many just use yyyy. Some use 20(yy) some use the first two digits of serial numbers as the date. Some use mm/dd/yyyy as the way to show dates. Some use mm/yyyy only. The Egyptians had a date format of y/dd/mm/y. Dates will be accepted in a variety of formats at this time.


This is great conversation. But we should be clear that it is conversation. When Xavier sets the standard, then it will be the standard. Sulfur and I have frequent conversations, and are showing flexibility at this stage to maximize interest in contributing to the building up of the banknote side of Numista.

I will not be rejecting new listings because of a narrow view of what should be allowed formatting wise. You are welcome to make formatting edits. But it seems to me that the one thing I do agree with Smoked_Caramel is that when a decision is made then the website does have a robot that can make things consistent.

The listings I will accept are P# 123, or P# 123a, etc. in the date comments.

All approvals or send backs are on a case by case basis at this time.

It is a wise use of our time to create listings. Consistency will happen as Xavier lets us know his preferences. By then, there will probably be plenty of national refs who can also work towards levels of consistency.

Thank you for all your contributions and comments. I have no doubt they will be thoughtfully considered.

Late here too. Here are my thoughts:

Signatures:

I would say to format them however you want.

Banknotes are still new, and the page to add a banknote is still very coin-based. A section for watermarks was recently added, and I imagine the same could be done with signatures. If that is the case, basically every year-line may need editing anyways. To change the formats of Signatures is not needed until we can figure out what will be done with signatures.

References:

We have decided on P#, so any changes there are valid. On the coin side, I do not recall ever seeing a space between the pound and the number though. While our reference section is like that, it may be more proper to remove the space from there.

For the decimals... I really did not see this as something that mattered. I always thought that, after the decimal, the reference stops (used for multiple varieties with one reference to chronologize everything). One format I saw was P#123a(1). I do like that more the decimal, but I agree that a decission should be made here.

Date formats:

While one format would be nice, another option would be to follow what the banknote says. If it says 2000/03/08 but we write that as 2000/08/03... that could be confusing. Different countries use different formats, and to apply the same standard may not be good. With that being said, this may also be in the same situation as Signatures--something could be implemenets to force a stardard.

Separators and 'Other things':

On the coin side, I have always seen these as things subjective to the referee. As long as it works as is consistent within one country, it should be fine.

-----

Right now, we have no guidelines and few standards. With our place on banknotes, this is not necessarily a bad thing. If we get a separate field for signatures, there is no need for a standard within the year-list. These are all, of course, good things to address and discuss, but it may be a little early to call anything definite.

Sulfur reminded me of conversations I have had with Colin Bruce and with George Cuhaj. The Krause and Pick are consistent only within a nations context. They are not necessarily consistent from cover to cover.

As an example, some French listings are separated by mint and numbered accordingly, while German coins are all in one listing regardless of mint.

I asked about this and was told that the way collectors collect and how national references are organized have some bearing on the arrangements...

It would be better to look for consistency within a nation, then the entire website.

What can easily be consistent is the title of a page, and then the catalog format...

Here is a situation I have found that may be interesting...Iran has used AH dating...SH dating...but our website only allows a choice of one dating system...so some listings seem to have ridiculous date ranges because you can only choose one date system for all dates, not by date line...so.. do you end up using Gregorian dates in this situation? I dont think so...its an issue for the new Iranian ref...whoever you are...

Thanks again to everyone for their input. At no point was I trying to force or define anything, and tried to use "would like to" or "prefer" in all my posts. Sorry if I did not achieve this. From the very beginning, as the title of the thread indicates, I wanted to talk, i.e. have a discussion, and the quotes around standard were intentional.

At this point I'd consider this thread a good progress and success. I'm sure all these thoughts will reach admins who are discussing this and will be considered in making the recommendations (or a standard, if you wish).

On the date format point, I agree with accuracy and helpfulness over technical reasons so want to take back my suggestion of a single fixed format for the date. Sticking to what is actually on a banknote does make perfect sense.

I also agree with radrick007 about making things as close as possible to the catalogs. To me personally I don't see much difference between a semi-colon and a period (dot).

Oklahoman, one thing I do want to clarify is the space in the Pick numbers:

Posted by Oklahoman on 6-May-2020, 12:21PM

CiteerSpaces will be included at this time. The format is P# 123

My guess is that you mean the lists and "Features" section of the pages here. This is how Pick numbers are presented currently.

Posted by Oklahoman on 6-May-2020, 12:34PM

CiteerPick numbers will not have spaces, and will only use lower case letters as a subdivision indicator in date line comments.

And this is for the year line comments - no spaces.

If the above is incorrect, please clarify.

So for now, until a standard/recommendation is announced I personally will be creating change requests considering points most of us agree on (mainly Pick numbers).

For dates - both the local date & the normal Western date should be included on separate date lines - even if the local date is described in languages such as French, German, Portuguese, & Spanish.

Maldivian notes prior to the 2015 issue are a mystery as for working out what months they were authorised in - as the text is in Arabic & the Thaana script used to write Divehi.

Aidan.

I mis-typed. I will be using spaces for the Pick numbers that identify the catalog number of the page, and I will be using spaces on the date lines as well. For consistency.

Everyone seems to forget that the catalog does not even use P#. It simply uses the # and it is assumed it is the P# because it is in the catalog.

There is no reason to submit P# without spacing edits. The robot can fix those if Xavier determines that is the way forward.

I am approving no space P# when they are being used to replace a P-. But I am disappointed that we are at almost 8,000 listings, and a change is being forced on me when Xavier hasnt made that change. Sulfur is right about coins not using a space in the datelines...so I imagine that Xavier might accept that as an eventuality. But please take a look at the Pick book. Each listing does not use P#123 or P# 123. It simply uses 123. Soo..we cant just say to do things the catalog way when we are not following that basic format. But really, this is not a hill I am willing to die on.

Maybe the Numista Robot could automatically change the way numbers are shown.
As mentioned earlier, this is just a discussion so far,
and the decision is still with Xavier which way they are shown.

I join to discussion and fully agree that we need develop some guidelines and standards literally for each field, particularly "Comment".

Date format: YYYY/MM/DD or YYYY-MM-DD are common in RDBMS world, so IMHO it is perfect to stick with it.

All the standards could be appeared as notes hovering over corresponding values on "Add Page"

Earlier I opened a thread related to format for title Face values. I could be discussed here as well.
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic96195.html

The date format is not settled either.

Different formats are acceptable at this point. While it is nice to go for consistency, please look for that consistency within a nation, not the entire website.

I suspect that it will be most easily resolved when a dedicated fields for the days, months, and years are created.

Just know that we are reasonable in our acceptance of new page creation regardless of your choice of format. Edits are also considered on a case by case basis.