Wiki Dictionary of Roman Coins

[Joe Sermarini]

The Wiki Dictionary of Roman Coins is coming soon! 

[J. Victoria]

After retyping several entries in the Dictionary of Roman Coins, I am reminded of a scholarly work by one P. Carroll Runyon, a student of Latin and Cicero, the "inventor (he says) of the run-on sentence."

English: "The BOY WALKED to the STORE and BOUGHT a LOAF of BREAD."

WAC (West Anglican Curmudgeon): "At some unspecified time and at an equally indeterminate location, it has been alleged by sources we may presume to credit -- at least within the parameters of this discussion -- that a male, supposedly well under the term of his majority, did (and being so described, we can assume funded for the purpose), make his way via perambulation to a commercial establishment where we are to suppose provisions were to be obtained, and having so arrived, is further said to have purchased for an undisclosed sum a standard measure of baked goods; most probably bread as the term loaf has been suggested in this context but not confirmed -- yet we can, for all practical purposes, concede the probability that the quantity of victuals may not have exceeded this single increment in light of the routine nature of the errand, the lack of auxiliary conveyance implied in the means of transit described, and the restricted pecuniary allotments most commonly assigned to those of such tender years, but to reach any more specific conclusions based on the few facts available would perhaps be imprudent."

[Joe Sermarini]

I felt it necessary to make a few of the entries I typed more concise.  You don't need to type it exactly as it was written.  With NumisWiki we hope to update and improve the original entries. 

[Massanutten]

  WHAT!!!!   Type AND Think?  For those who invariably get their gum stuck to their shoes that may too much!!!     

[J. Victoria]

Actually, my husband types the entries and I proof read them.  So, you are correct: there is no thinking *and* typing going on at the same time.

Thank you Joe for allowing some leeway.  We feel the original should be closely followed, only correcting typos and ruler names. Ruler names are important to the way Wiki links.  The authors have a habit of using variations and nicknames.  However, now we will be looking to insert [additional] edits when the text's lingo becomes confusing or could be significantly improved.

[Robert_Brenchley]

You're quite right; names should be standardised wherever possible. Which raises the question of how we establish the standard. You don't want one person editing them to comply with one 'standard' while someone else does the same to another.

[esnible]

The "NumisWiki vision" is to produce the best possible ancient numismatic encyclopedia.  The idea is similar to the famous WikiPedia.

WikiPedia got its start taking the public-domain 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica as the basis for all articles.  Readers were free to improve the articles by becomiming writers.

For example, here is the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica entry for Caracalla:
http://95.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CA/CARACALLA.htm

The current WikiPedia entry is much improved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracalla

Sticking to the text of the Dictionary Of Roman Coins produces a useful historical book.  Improvements can make it better.

I contributed the Historia Numorum text and images to NumisWiki.  I hope readers will become writers and improve Barclay Head's work.  I will keep the original 1911 text on my web site for readers interested in seeing the 1911 text.  So many other works cite Historia Numorum that it makes sense for there to be a way to see the book as readers in the 1920s would have seen it.  There will always be two versions, the original 1911 version and an improved/evolving version.

Here is the NumisWiki entry for Caracalla, for comparison with the WikiPedia and Britannica versions:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Caracalla

[*Alex]

You're quite right; names should be standardised wherever possible. Which raises the question of how we establish the standard. You don't want one person editing them to comply with one 'standard' while someone else does the same to another.

I doubt very much if any of us who are actually writing up the Numiswiki are going to be so Nit-picking with someone else's work. I've corrected the odd typo that I have stumbled across, but have probably left plenty of my own. 
As far as leeway is concerned, I have left myself plenty,  in fact, amongst other things, I totally re-wrote "Eudocia" as the original was completely out of date and incorrect. Anybody can add to Numiswiki, so anything that I have done that is not acceptable can easily be amended.
Some articles I have blindly copied over from the original Victorian work, but there are others that I have altered somewhat. 

Alex.

[Bacchus]

I too, think there is probably need for an editorial eye cast over the results so far.  I get the definite impression that the work was compiled by different people as there are certain styles adopted for different listings (or groups of listings).  i.e. different abreviation rules adopted in different places.  Still, you can't beat actually typing something out to make it stick in your head.

-:Bacchus:-

[Lawrence Woolslayer]

I too, think there is probably need for an editorial eye cast over the results so far.  I get the definite impression that the work was compiled by different people as there are certain styles adopted for different listings (or groups of listings).  i.e. different abreviation rules adopted in different places.  Still, you can't beat actually typing something out to make it stick in your head.

-:Bacchus:-

Yes there are two different styles. I have only noticed that one writer uses commas and dashes, and a rare period. The other writer adds the parenthesis and is more concise. When reading the title page just a few days ago, I finally notice the original author died before completing the dictionary, as did the artist.

[Massanutten]

    I have finally evolved in my Wikkiness.  At first I just copied what I saw. I'm now attempting to remove the strangled language and making it (I think) easier to read while keeping as close as I can to the original text.  I can walk and chew gum at the same time!!
Bob

[Lawrence Woolslayer]

A gem from the "definition" of BON EVENT:

Eventus, according to Cicero's definition (De Invent. Rhet. i c 28), is "the issue of any matter respecting which we generally inquire, what has resulted, or may result, or will ultimately result, from such circumstances."

[Joe Sermarini]

A gem from the "definition" of BON EVENT:

Eventus, according to Cicero's definition (De Invent. Rhet. i c 28), is "the issue of any matter respecting which we generally inquire, what has resulted, or may result, or will ultimately result, from such circumstances."

Huh?