Outstanding nonsense in HMS Endeavour emission [Resolvido]

The article about New Zealand HMS Endeavour coins of 1967-1985 years is an lovely example of nonsense.

It dared to state that the KM# 37.1 is described  there, at the same time it declared 

The KM#37.2 is no longer on this page, since it was NOT defined as this:

Come on, why the coins 1984 and 1985 are still at this article?

Or look at this excellent riddle:

Note. Obviously the percentage is from wrongly described occurrence of lines and has nothing to do with frequency as it expected to be. This is not the case of this topic and in this post  onwards this nonsense will be omitted. 

Someone put personal notations next to some dates and did not even care to write a single hint to guess the meanings of these mysterious “c," “l” and so on and so on.

But what is not clear at all, how the standard die defects found there way in catalog? 

They are explicitly shown in the same image:

in the comments of 1967. Please again see Note above. This post is not about the percentage!

Maybe the Numista Team just copied-and-pasted the defects from the Standard Catalog of World Coins? But why not to check the information first before publishing the nonsense?  The New Zealand numismatics is very young and coin dealers are ready to sale anything extra to collectors, every defect for them is a treasure. As the result they cheat standardly by naming a defect as a variety, they used for it even the Standard Catalog of World Coins as a tool. Any one may collect anything, even defects and pay for it as much as they want. It is not an excuse to put the highly collectible items in another catalog. 

Give the numista link, please?

I suppose your problem is that km37.2 is missing in numista?

It took some time to decrypt, but:

If you see missing reference on a coin, feel free to add it through standard modification.

I will leave a tag for referee here, in case he wants to split these coins: @brismike 

Ok let me see if I can decipher what is going on here. You do seem to write in riddles.  

Page for reference >>> N#3915

You seem to be perplexed that the 1984/85 KM37.2 coins are not included in the mintage table? Is that correct?

Also you seem to be concerned that the “c” “l” and “o” indicators are not explained on the page? Is that correct?

I took over the New Zealand pages after this page was created and have never had anyone question me about this page before.

Anyway I have got a copy of the John Bertrand New Zealand Coin & Banknote Catalogue 2021

On page 30 where the 50cent coins are listed there is no mention of a KM# 37.2 on 1984, 1985 or any other year. I suspect that is why they are not included in the mintage lines on Numista. It may have been that they were included at an earlier time by mistake and is why that graphic is on the Numista page for this coin stating it is no longer on there. This is not a big deal and that graphic can deleted so there is no more confusion.

The “c” “l” and “o” indicators were also put on the page a very long time ago. I believe they are indicating the place the coin was minted although they are not Mintmarks.

“c” is Canberra (Royal Australian Mint)

“l” is Llantrisant (Royal Mint)

“o” is Ottawa (Royal Canadian Mint)

I hope this helps and if you want the Graphic to be removed let me know.

Regards Mike

The c, l and o come directly from SCWC. Unfortunately the “decoder” table was deemed not necessary to add to the coin page.

I believe the Numista guidelines states to not put in the mint letter column but to add the mint name to the year line comments.

Looks like we still have all the problems marked in the first post and none was solved.

The first post gives:

It dared to state that the KM# 37.1 is described  there, at the same time it declared 

The KM#37.2 is no longer on this page, since it was NOT defined as this:

The riddle is not explained! 

There are lot of people who may correct it in human way.

Next. The first post gives:

look at this excellent riddle:

Note. Obviously the percentage is from wrongly described occurrence of lines and has nothing to do with frequency as it expected to be. This is not the case of this topic and in this post  onwards this nonsense will be omitted. 

Someone put personal notations next to some dates and did not even care to write a single hint to guess the meanings of these mysterious “c," “l” and so on and so on.

Someone explained the meaning in this forum, but forgot to give link to the explanation at the article itself! What a new nonsense: how a reader should guess, that the mysterious marks are not private notes but at a special place of  Numista are explained? 

Next. The first post gives:

But what is not clear at all, how the standard die defects found there way in catalog? 

They are explicitly shown in the same image:

in the comments of 1967. Please again see Note above. This post is not about the percentage!

My apologies again about absurd of percentage. Yes, I know that it is annoying constantly see it, but we should concentrate on less obvious absurds at the moment. I checked again: we still have defects described in the article! Though Numista declared that it does not describe defects, position of edge and other individual features. So in declaration is shows that it is in the science of Numsnatics, in fact it protects all these games of small children with coins.

How it was possible to know all these spoilage to do nothing to correct them?  most probably the reason is the His Majesty as usual prefer to guard the nonsense (see the standards of His behavior at posts https://en.numista.com/forum/topic143683.html https://en.numista.com/forum/topic51669.html   for details)  even when the whole community confirmed spoilage, and found the way how to correct them. 

Guy from the island, when will you start to write in proper English? It's simply impossible to understand your ramblings.

Page is now updated. Hopefully this satisfies the OP? - Mike