Menu

Drop down box for selecting metal

This message aims at: suggesting an idea to improve Numista

Status: Implemented
Votes: 50

» Quick access to the last post

Author Message
neilithic
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Posts: 7493
Recently there was complaints about someone changing Aluminium-bronze to Aluminium-Bronze. That got me thinking about all the different ways that people could enter in the metals when creating/editing pages. At the moment it is a free-text box so there are no restrictions. You could have people enter cupro-nickel, Cupro-nickel, Cupro-Nickel, Cupro nickel, cu-ni. cu ni, etc. That must be hell when searching for a coin and you have to try 10 times to get the coin you want. I know a search for "gold" brings up "Nordic gold" and a search for Nickel brings up all the cupro-nickel entries.

I think it would be a good idea to have everything standardised and in a drop-down box for selecting metals when adding a coin or modifying a coin. Then you could also have the matching drop-down box in the search field so you know you're going to find what you're looking for.
Euromunt
Joined: 20-Aug-2012
Posts: 546
Good idea!
@josephjk
Joined: 26-Jul-2011
Posts: 1312
+1
Silver (and gold?) will need different percentages - great idea!
smoked_caramel
Joined: 3-Jul-2012
Posts: 1531
I do support the idea but it needs more thinking I think. For example, what about bi-metal and even tri-metal coins? Theoretically, combinations aren't endless but there is quite a lot.
neilithic
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Posts: 7493
Yes there are a lot.....but look at the drop down box for selecting the currencies. There's hundreds in there and nobody complains that they can't find what they're looking for.

Bi-metallic and tri-metallic could have a separate entry. After all, if you know a coin is tri metallic you're hardly going to be searching for an individual metal in the coin.
Xavier Site admin
Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Posts: 3898
For information, there are currently 2000 different metals in the catalogue.
I estimate it could be divided by about 2 if guidelines were better respected or imposed by a dropdown list.

A few examples:
Gold (.999, 24k) plated Silver (.500) with encapsulated Amethyst stones
Bi-Metallic Tantalum center (partially gilt) in Silver (.925) ring
Bi-Metallic Gold (.9166) center in White Gold (.375 Au, .625 Ag) ring
Bi-Metallic Brass (92% Cu, 6% Al, 2% Ni) center in Copper (75%) - nickel (25%) ring
Plastic (Green)
Planchet: 90,8% iron, 1,2% carbon, layers: 7,35-6,7% copper, 0,65-1,3% tin
88.5% Copper - 6% Zinc - 3.5% Manganese - 2% Nickel
Silver (.925). oxidized with synthetic zircon
Wood

It's a nightmare for search, but sometimes it's interesting to have all the details.
neilithic
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Posts: 7493
This is exactly the reason why we need a dropdown box, to simplify things so we don't have 2000 different metals
  • Bi-metallic should be 1 entry and the details of the actual composition of the metals entered into the comments field.
  • Tri-metallic should be 1 entry and the details of the actual composition of the metals entered into the comments field.
  • Entries like "Planchet: 90,8% iron, 1,2% carbon, layers: 7,35-6,7% copper, 0,65-1,3% tin" should be simplified under "Iron" with any information about the actual composition listed in the comments field (we list sterling silver as "silver 92.5%", not silver 92.5%, copper 7.5%"
  • Exactly the same for this, "88.5% Copper - 6% Zinc - 3.5% Manganese - 2% Nickel" This is a bronze coin, list it as bronze and put any additional information in the comments field. If someone has a coin that is Bronze, they're not likely to get out the spectro-analyser and say "Oh this coin is 88.5% Copper - 6% Zinc - 3.5% Manganese - 2% Nickel, I'll enter that into the search field. They're going to search for "Bronze"
  • Any ridiculous compositions like this one "Gold (.999, 24k) plated Silver (.500) with encapsulated Amethyst stones" can have a section listed as "other" as anyone searching for that coin is not likely to be searching by composition.
nthn
Joined: 2-Mar-2015
Posts: 1886
Quote: "neilithic"​This is exactly the reason why we need a dropdown box, to simplify things so we don't have 2000 different metals

  • Bi-metallic should be 1 entry and the details of the actual composition of the metals entered into the comments field.

  • Tri-metallic should be 1 entry and the details of the actual composition of the metals entered into the comments field.

  • Entries like "Planchet: 90,8% iron, 1,2% carbon, layers: 7,35-6,7% copper, 0,65-1,3% tin" should be simplified under "Iron" with any information about the actual composition listed in the comments field (we list sterling silver as "silver 92.5%", not silver 92.5%, copper 7.5%"

  • Exactly the same for this, "88.5% Copper - 6% Zinc - 3.5% Manganese - 2% Nickel" This is a bronze coin, list it as bronze and put any additional information in the comments field. If someone has a coin that is Bronze, they're not likely to get out the spectro-analyser and say "Oh this coin is 88.5% Copper - 6% Zinc - 3.5% Manganese - 2% Nickel, I'll enter that into the search field. They're going to search for "Bronze"

  • Any ridiculous compositions like this one "Gold (.999, 24k) plated Silver (.500) with encapsulated Amethyst stones" can have a section listed as "other" as anyone searching for that coin is not likely to be searching by composition.

​+176.95
Referee for Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Italian states, Niue, Order of Malta, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, American Samoa, Sarawak, Tibet and Zambia. All of my swap list is for sale.
neilithic
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Posts: 7493
I don't want this to drop off the first screen and be forgotten about.

You turned one suggestion down because more people were against the suggestion that for it, well this one is an overwhelming majority of people wanting it and I think it should be implemented.

You've added all the different catalogues that people use as a collaborative list, surely we can do the same with metals. Simplify the list of metals and people can start altering the coins to fit with the list. New metals can be added if they can be shown to be completely different from something already in the dropdown list. e.g. 88.5% Copper - 6% Zinc - 3.5% Manganese - 2% Nickel should be turned down as it can be expressed as the simplified version "Bronze"
DonChori
Joined: 8-May-2012
Posts: 852
Quote: "neilithic"
  • Bi-metallic should be 1 entry and the details of the actual composition of the metals entered into the comments field.

  • Tri-metallic should be 1 entry and the details of the actual composition of the metals entered into the comments field.​
​No. There should be the information about the composition. There's a huge variety of bi-metallic coins and they do look very different. e.g. 1 Euro, 2 Euro and the current 10 Dinars Algeria (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces597.html) are all very different compositions. Why should they be subsumed?
Euromunt
Joined: 20-Aug-2012
Posts: 546
Quote: "DonChori"​​No. There should be the information about the composition. There's a huge variety of bi-metallic coins and they do look very different. e.g. 1 Euro, 2 Euro and the current 10 Dinars Algeria (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces597.html) are all very different compositions. Why should they be subsumed?
​+1
neilithic
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Posts: 7493
Quote: "DonChori"​​​No. There should be the information about the composition. There's a huge variety of bi-metallic coins and they do look very different. e.g. 1 Euro, 2 Euro and the current 10 Dinars Algeria (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces597.html) are all very different compositions. Why should they be subsumed?

​Simplification, the information on its actual composition can still be added into the comments field. How many people would type "Bi-Metallic Aluminium-magnesium center in Stainless Steel ring" into a search compared to people who would just select the country and then "bi-metallic" in the metal field?
DonChori
Joined: 8-May-2012
Posts: 852
Quote: "neilithic"​Simplification, the information on its actual composition can still be added into the comments field. How many people would type "Bi-Metallic Aluminium-magnesium center in Stainless Steel ring" into a search compared to people who would just select the country and then "bi-metallic" in the metal field?

​It's not about the search function. "Bi-metallic" is not an appropriate value for the composition field. It's not wrong but it's an information that is too important to just mention it in the comment field. You also would not write "metal" in the composition field- that's also true but not detailed enough.
If there was a drop down menu for the material in my opinion after selecting bi- or tri-metallic it should be possible to select the metals of the core and the ring so that the information could be provided.
neilithic
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Posts: 7493
Quote: "DonChori"
Quote: "neilithic"​Simplification, the information on its actual composition can still be added into the comments field. How many people would type "Bi-Metallic Aluminium-magnesium center in Stainless Steel ring" into a search compared to people who would just select the country and then "bi-metallic" in the metal field?

​​It's not about the search function. "Bi-metallic" is not an appropriate value for the composition field. It's not wrong but it's an information that is too important to just mention it in the comment field. You also would not write "metal" in the composition field- that's also true but not detailed enough.
​If there was a drop down menu for the material in my opinion after selecting bi- or tri-metallic it should be possible to select the metals of the core and the ring so that the information could be provided.
​That was my idea for silver/gold, once silver/gold is selected, an extra option appears for you to enter the fineness, perhaps the same could be done with bi/tri metallic coins
neilithic
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Posts: 7493
Still no movement on this? Disappointing :(
Xavier Site admin
Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Posts: 3898
On one hand I don't want to lose information because of over-simplification. On the other hand, I fear that even covering common cases would lead to some complexity:
  • Specify fineness
  • Take into account bi-metallic or more
  • Take into account plated coins

Additionally having a predefined list would mean accepting to lose details about less common alloys. For me, "88.5% Copper - 6% Zinc - 3.5% Manganese - 2% Nickel" is not the same as "85% Copper - 15% Tin". I'm not sure they should both be called bronze.
Comments could be used for that, but its probably not the ideal solution.

It's really not an easy topic. In my opinion the solution so far is not mature enough.
neilithic
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Posts: 7493
For me the metal, like the denomination, country, year, etc is a feature used for searching the catalogue. You want people to be able to find what they're looking for. If you know your coin is bronze you're going to be searching for bronze. I don't think anyone would be searching for "88.5% Copper - 6% Zinc - 3.5% Manganese - 2% Nickel" They will search for bronze. The fineness issue of silver and gold is the main drawback, that is why I was asking if it is possible to have a prompt for entering fineness once silver or gold is selected.
Xavier Site admin
Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Posts: 3898
You can already search for coins made of "88.5% Copper - 6% Zinc - 3.5% Manganese - 2% Nickel" without entering the full composition. You can just enter "brass" in the advanced search (click for an example).
It's nice to search easily but it's also nice to have the details after you found the coin.
chomp-master
Joined: 10-Mar-2015
Posts: 5744
Nordic gold seems to be the core of an issue, making them counting in the gold amount. I know that's it's its common name, but as this is making troubles, why shouldn't we remane it in a close way replacing "gold"? I remember 1st-years old French communication about euro coinage using alliage nordique ("nordic alloy") instead.
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
ngdawa
Joined: 18-Oct-2011
Posts: 2922
Quote: "chomp-master"​Nordic gold seems to be the core of an issue, making them counting in the gold amount. I know that's it's its common name, but as this is making troubles, why shouldn't we remane it in a close way replacing "gold"? I remember 1st-years old French communication about euro coinage using alliage nordique ("nordic alloy") instead.
​That is not the case. I have a lot of Nordic Gold coins, but just 1 grams in gold. This is my Niuean 25 dollar gold coin on 1.23 grams.
chomp-master
Joined: 10-Mar-2015
Posts: 5744
Well... I was thinking about other issues, but maybe are they not due to this, so, let's forget it
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
pnightingale
Joined: 27-Jul-2011
Posts: 5207
I was redirected to this old topic while reading a related issue.

It's a great idea and it's a very sound one from a data management perspective. Drop down menus with pre-populated choices should be the default if you wish for integrity of the data. Free form fields should be the very last resort, used only where there is no reasonable alternative. They make for bad search results! I'm 100% behind this idea.

It seems however that the reason this wasn't implemented is because it would lead to the loss of some very useful information. Fair enough, it's information that I like to have, not just for precious metal content but for all types of alloys. Such things appeal to my inner nerd.

We could do this and retain the composition data though...... Create the simplified drop down menu as proposed by Neil but keep the extra details such as precise make up of the alloy "off page" but accessible via a tooltip when you hover the mouse over the "metal" field. Is this technically possible? I've seen plenty of examples of this kind of thing elsewhere so I would guess so although there may be some data entry grunt work needed to make it happen.

I would suggest that when creating the options for the drop down menu we take the unusual step of choosing the "shorthand" name based on numismatic significance rather than simply opting for the biggest percentage. So for example, 1965+ JFK 1/2 Dollars would be listed as "Silver" despite being only 40% pure. Same for those lovely Morello Pesos which have a mere 10%. I think of them as being silver coins, don't you? So the menu would read "Silver (.400)" / "Silver (.100)" and the exact composition of other metal would be shown via the tooltip.

This solution should meet the needs of us 411 junkies while at the same time give more valid search results. The only remaining problem I can see is that of editing the menu options. Allowing anyone to make changes would lead to the same chaotic mess that we get from free form fields. When adding a new coin it might be necessary to first submit a request to one of the admin team to create a new menu option. It would be somewhat cumbersome but I don't think there will be enough instances for this to be a major problem.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Supreme Ruler and Dictator for Life of the 6th Avenue Coin, Stamp  & Rice Puller Club.
nthn
Joined: 2-Mar-2015
Posts: 1886
I would rather see the silver option input so that you could select the metal (Silver) which would then open up another free input slot beside it to enter 400, or 925. See picture below.

Referee for Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Italian states, Niue, Order of Malta, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, American Samoa, Sarawak, Tibet and Zambia. All of my swap list is for sale.
neilithic
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Posts: 7493
Quote: "nthn"​I would rather see the silver option input so that you could select the metal (Silver) which would then open up another free input slot beside it to enter 400, or 925. See picture below.

​Yes I like this, this is what I was imagining when I suggested in this thread earlier on "That was my idea for silver/gold, once silver/gold is selected, an extra option appears for you to enter the fineness,"
nthn
Joined: 2-Mar-2015
Posts: 1886
I also thought that for bi and tri metallic coins, to be able to select "Add another metal" and add one or two more metals. That would also allow to add coins that are like the .100 Silver pesos, to add two metals, one "Silver .100", and one for the rest of the metals in the coin, like copper nickel.
Referee for Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Italian states, Niue, Order of Malta, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, American Samoa, Sarawak, Tibet and Zambia. All of my swap list is for sale.
neilithic
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Posts: 7493
Or you could have all coin forms containing:
  1. A simplified drop down box for selecting the metal
  2. A free text box for composition, where you can enter either the fineness of a precious metal, a detailed composition of alloys, the different metals of a bi-metallic/tri-metallic coin, or a description of the more unusual coins

examples:

Drop down box selection - Metal: Silver
Free text box entry - Composition: 92.5%

Drop down box selection -Metal: Bronze
Free text box entry - Composition: copper 85%, tin 15%

Drop down box selection -Metal: Bi-Metallic
Free text box entry -Composition: 92.5% silver center in bronze outer

Drop down box selection -Metal: Silver
Free text box entry -Composition: 50% silver coin plated with 99.9% gold with encapsulated amethyst
Cyrillius Numista team
Joined: 5-Jun-2013
Posts: 1626
I think any of your proposal would improve the situation! This is better than the uncontrolled chaos in metals right now. In addition, this would lead to conformity English and French versions.
Oklahoman
Joined: 20-Dec-2015
Posts: 1866
Nthn...i love your thoughts on this...i have gold, platinum and silver that is not trackable because they are in the same coin. Id like my precious metal totals to be somewhat trackable...
mikimaus
Joined: 18-Jan-2015
Posts: 173
Set up a drop down list (BTW - very good idea, should already be implemented) - combobox not mandatory, transfer all current data to secondary text box (free entry) alfanumeric field (or just leave it in actual field). Define admin, who is adding new varieties. Redefine material statistics on "Your coins" page. Case closed.
best regards
Status changed to Implemented (Xavier, 28-Jul-2019, 03:58PM)
Xavier Site admin
Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Posts: 3898
Hello,

This long-standing highly-voted feature is finally implemented. Metals are not free-text anymore, but based on a fixed list of materials. This will allow more precise search for metal, statistics of metals, view coins per metal, etc.

It means also a bit more complex way to edit the metal of a coin in the catalogue:
  • First select the type of composition: single metal, bi-metallic, plated, etc.
  • Based on the first choice, select one or several metals, alloys or other materials
  • If a precious metal is selected, enter the fineness
  • You may also enter some additional details a free-text if needed

A majority of coins were already migrated to the new model and the rest will be done in the next days or weeks.
ZacUK Numista team
Joined: 3-Jan-2011
Posts: 6784
Ah yes, I see the menu in Advanced Search now. Thanks :)



B. I had to search what three of them were >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orichalcum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamak


:( Edit - just seen on that list there is no 'White metal' as I have more than a dozen
items I created pages for with that as the metal; what is it called now then?
I see none of my pages have a metal now ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_metal
My collections >
http://mycoinssite.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=13560800
also 13750057 also 15924495 also 15995337
http://mycoinssite.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=16060326
radrick007
Joined: 7-Feb-2011
Posts: 2273
​I'm guessing that this feature is still in its early stages but I have a couple of observations:

During some previous discussions around 'bi-metallic' or 'bimetallic', the results of my English dictionary search were that 'bimetallic' is the correct term;

Having just looked at a couple a coin pages that gave the metal as 'Copper plated steel', I then saw when I go to the UK catalogue list, the coins are shown as merely 'Plated steel' - is this intentional or a bug?
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon

Catalogue referee for Celtic Britain, England, United Kingdom, New Zealand & Pre-Union South Africa
Xavier Site admin
Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Posts: 3898
Quote: "ZacUK"
:( Edit - just seen on that list there is no 'White metal' as I have more than a dozen
​items I created pages for with that as the metal; what is it called now then?
​ I see none of my pages have a metal now ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_metal

I'm still struggling to convert some metals to the new model. Here are the "metals" with more than 30 coins and which are not converted yet:
  • White Metal
  • Non-magnetic alloy
  • Magnetic alloy
  • Yellow metal
  • Various
  • Cast Copper Alloy
  • Aureate-bronze plated Nickel
I just read the Wikipedia page, but I'm still not sure whether "white metal" brings more information than just no metal at all.
Quote: "radrick007"During some previous discussions around 'bi-metallic' or 'bimetallic', the results of my English dictionary search were that 'bimetallic' is the correct term;
Could you please provide the reference for this?
Is there any difference between British English and American English?
Quote: "radrick007"​​Having just looked at a couple a coin pages that gave the metal as 'Copper plated steel', I then saw when I go to the UK catalogue list, the coins are shown as merely 'Plated steel' - is this intentional or a bug?
This would be a bug. Could you please provide an example?
On this page for example I can correctly see "Copper plated steel"
radrick007
Joined: 7-Feb-2011
Posts: 2273
I'll come back to you on the dictionary references but there will be many differences between English and American. The coin pages are displaying the metals correctly but it is the catalogue list that is not correct:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/royaume-uni-10.html
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon

Catalogue referee for Celtic Britain, England, United Kingdom, New Zealand & Pre-Union South Africa
Xavier Site admin
Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Posts: 3898
Thanks! This bug is fixed.
RGormanJr
Joined: 30-Nov-2018
Posts: 37
Quote: "NXavier"​Hello,

​This long-standing highly-voted feature is finally implemented. Metals are not free-text anymore, but based on a fixed list of materials. This will allow more precise search for metal, statistics of metals, view coins per metal, etc.

​It means also a bit more complex way to edit the metal of a coin in the catalogue:

  • First select the type of composition: single metal, bi-metallic, plated, etc.

  • Based on the first choice, select one or several metals, alloys or other materials

  • If a precious metal is selected, enter the fineness

  • You may also enter some additional details a free-text if needed


​A majority of coins were already migrated to the new model and the rest will be done in the next days or weeks.
​thanks for implementing this. It’s already led me to find some new materials! :-)

however, when I search for “non-precious” metals, I get many silver containing coins. Is this a bug, or it merely because these coins have not yet been migrated over to the new model?

thanks!
radrick007
Joined: 7-Feb-2011
Posts: 2273
Quote: "Xavier"
Quote: "radrick007"During some previous discussions around 'bi-metallic' or 'bimetallic', the results of my English dictionary search were that 'bimetallic' is the correct term;

​Could you please provide the reference for this?
​Is there any difference between British English and American English?
​Here's a few links to online dictionary definition pages:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bimetallic
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bimetallic
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bimetallic
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon

Catalogue referee for Celtic Britain, England, United Kingdom, New Zealand & Pre-Union South Africa
nthn
Joined: 2-Mar-2015
Posts: 1886
Wonderful! I see that this also makes all silver (.100) coins calculate the correct value.

Maybe make it possible to add multiple metals, such as in the case above, also add copper (.900)?
Referee for Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Italian states, Niue, Order of Malta, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, American Samoa, Sarawak, Tibet and Zambia. All of my swap list is for sale.
Xavier Site admin
Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Posts: 3898
The search for "non precious" metals and the spelling for "bimetallic" and "trimetallic" are fixed.

You may add details about the second metal of the silver alloy in the fiel for additional metal details. See a similar use of additional details: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7984.html.
numinis
Joined: 19-Aug-2015
Posts: 312
Quote: "RGormanJr"
​however, when I search for “non-precious” metals, I get many silver containing coins. Is this a bug, or it merely because these coins have not yet been migrated over to the new model?

Related: ​Silver (.100) is classified as precious, and Billon as non precious.
ūūūūū
radrick007
Joined: 7-Feb-2011
Posts: 2273
Sorry to keep posting in this thread but it seems appropriate for recent issues arriving from the metal drop down box: The 'centre' of the coin is currently in the American form 'center', could we please maintain consistency and keep to the English form?
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon

Catalogue referee for Celtic Britain, England, United Kingdom, New Zealand & Pre-Union South Africa
Xavier Site admin
Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Posts: 3898
Quote: "numinis"​Related: ​Silver (.100) is classified as precious, and Billon as non precious.
​Maybe "​Silver (.100)" should not even exist, but rather be marked as billon, with 10% silver.
Quote: "radrick007"​Sorry to keep posting in this thread but it seems appropriate for recent issues arriving from the metal drop down box: The 'centre' of the coin is currently in the American form 'center', could we please maintain consistency and keep to the English form?
​Feel free to continue reporting any glitch or suggestions. I just changed into "centre" for non-American users.
Cyrillius Numista team
Joined: 5-Jun-2013
Posts: 1626
Hello.
Perhaps out of place, but is there a possibility of such a function for forms (round, round with cutouts, with a hole, octagonal and so on)?
Jarcek Numista team
Joined: 22-Dec-2014
Posts: 5839
Quote: "Cyrillius"​Hello.
​Perhaps out of place, but is there a possibility of such a function for forms (round, round with cutouts, with a hole, octagonal and so on)?
​If I am not mistaken, this is also in future plan. :)
Catalogue administrator, Referee for Kingdom of Bohemia. You can also support my work on Numista through Patreon if you wish. (Link on profile page)
Xavier Site admin
Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Posts: 3898
It definitely makes sense for shapes as well, and probably easier to put in place than for metals.
It's tracked here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic55789.html
radrick007
Joined: 7-Feb-2011
Posts: 2273
Quote: "Xavier"
Quote: "radrick007"​Sorry to keep posting in this thread but it seems appropriate for recent issues arriving from the metal drop down box: The 'centre' of the coin is currently in the American form 'center', could we please maintain consistency and keep to the English form?
​​Feel free to continue reporting any glitch or suggestions. I just changed into "centre" for non-American users.
​Unfortunately, it would seem that our friend Mr Robot has been naughty again, disobeying his instructions :. The new UK pound coin is showing a bimetallic description including 'center' instead of the agreed English form 'centre'. Also, according to the Royal Mint website the centre of the pound coin is not copper-nickel but nickel plated brass. Would it be possible to include this in the drop down list, if it is not already?
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon

Catalogue referee for Celtic Britain, England, United Kingdom, New Zealand & Pre-Union South Africa
Xavier Site admin
Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Posts: 3898
Hello Radrick,
Mr Robot did nothing wrong here. The previous metal description (from your edit on 2018-08-24) was "Bimetallic: copper-nickel centre in nickel-brass ring". The conversion made by Mr Robot resulted in the exact same description "Bimetallic: copper-nickel centre in nickel-brass ring".
If this is not correct, I suggest to change the composition manually (Mr Robot didn't learn yet how to browse the website of the Royal Mint).
Regarding the "centre" / "center" issue, it all depends on the language of your web browser. Only browsers with American English as preferred language should see "center".
radrick007
Joined: 7-Feb-2011
Posts: 2273
Hello Xavier, please pass on my apologies to Mr Robot, I didn't know that about the browsers but you are quite correct - it shows as 'center' in Google Chrome but displays correctly as 'centre' in Internet Explorer.

You are also correct that I have only just found out about the metal composition of the 'centre' of the new pound coins, previously we were under the impression it was copper-nickel.

I can't see any option to manually input metals, is this something that you would be able to assist with or do I need to log a ticket with the catalogue admin?
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon

Catalogue referee for Celtic Britain, England, United Kingdom, New Zealand & Pre-Union South Africa
Xavier Site admin
Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Posts: 3898
I just talked with Mr Robot, he doesn't feel offended ;)

You should be able to change the composition on the same page as for other modifications. Here is a screenshot. Please let me know if it doesn't work for you.

radrick007
Joined: 7-Feb-2011
Posts: 2273
Wow, I am so behind the times, I had no idea the drop-down was so flexible and powerful, you have been busy! I am now pleased to report that the composition has been updated to reflect the latest information showing on the RM website and having now updated the languages on my browser, the centre is displaying in the correct English form and I am a happy bunny! :) I suppose I had better get back to my paid work now 8)
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon

Catalogue referee for Celtic Britain, England, United Kingdom, New Zealand & Pre-Union South Africa
Xavier Site admin
Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Posts: 3898
Thanks, so many good news :)
Indomini16
Joined: 12-Jun-2017
Posts: 435
Just a note, when I go to my coins, if I click on the grades, I can see a list of my coins by grade. Can we implement that for material too?
Would be much easier :-)

Also the page call "My coins" list all we have, as a lot of collectors are also collecting tokens it will be more accurate to call it "My collection".
Always look on the bright side of life!
Xavier Site admin
Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Posts: 3898
Hello Indomini16,

Yes, it's planned to make the chart of metals in your collection clickable. I thought there was already a suggestion in the forum for it, but I can't find it. Do you mind opening a new topic for that?

Regarding your second point, I fear that "my collection" might be misleading, since some people consider some of their coins as not being part of their collection. I prefer to keep calling it "My coins" even if it is not very accurate.
ZacUK Numista team
Joined: 3-Jan-2011
Posts: 6784
Quote: "Xavier"​​Yes, it's planned to make the chart of metals in your collection clickable. I thought there was already a suggestion in the forum for it, but I can't find it. Do you mind opening a new topic for that?
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic51000.html#p690958
My collections >
http://mycoinssite.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=13560800
also 13750057 also 15924495 also 15995337
http://mycoinssite.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=16060326
Indomini16
Joined: 12-Jun-2017
Posts: 435
Quote: "Xavier"​Hello Indomini16,

​Yes, it's planned to make the chart of metals in your collection clickable. I thought there was already a suggestion in the forum for it, but I can't find it. Do you mind opening a new topic for that?

​Regarding your second point, I fear that "my collection" might be misleading, since some people consider some of their coins as not being part of their collection. I prefer to keep calling it "My coins" even if it is not very accurate.
It's this one you are looking for I think :-)
Always look on the bright side of life!
Cyrillius Numista team
Joined: 5-Jun-2013
Posts: 1626
Quote: "Xavier"​It definitely makes sense for shapes as well, and probably easier to put in place than for metals.
​It's tracked here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic55789.html
​Hello.
Perhaps there is also a track for this topic: Drop down list for Mint (like Monnaie de Paris)?
So that this is indicated not in the notes, but as a separate window, available for search on both sides of the site.

And if it is important for us to have everything the same for both Numista languages, then for the state of the coin, one should also have, like Proof / BE?

I would suggest the option of choosing Proof / BU in the form of flags familiar to us.

(I am sure that Mr. Robot could then transfer the mints from the notes.)

Thank you.



Edit.
P.S.
Perhaps the time has come for the edge as well? (Smooth/plain, reeded/milled, smooth/reeded with inscription...)
Indomini16
Joined: 12-Jun-2017
Posts: 435
Quote: "Cyrillius"
Quote: "Xavier"​It definitely makes sense for shapes as well, and probably easier to put in place than for metals.
​​It's tracked here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic55789.html
​​Hello.
​Perhaps there is also a track for this topic: Drop down list for Mint (like Monnaie de Paris)?
​So that this is indicated not in the notes, but as a separate window, available for search on both sides of the site.

​And if it is important for us to have everything the same for both Numista languages, then for the state of the coin, one should also have, like Proof / BE?

​(I am sure that Mr. Robot could then transfer the mints from the notes.)

​Thank you.
​Very good suggestions !
Always look on the bright side of life!

» Top of the page

Used time zone is UTC+2:00.
Current time is 09:58PM.