Iraq inconsistency

Let's have a look at date distribution of these the same style Iraq coins:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3300.html

YearMintageVGFVFXFUNCExchange
1969 12,000,000١٩٦٩
1970 12,000,000١٩٧٠
1972 12,000,000١٩٧٢
1975 36,000,000١٩٧٥
1979 1,500,000١٩٧٩
1980 23,520,000١٩٨٠
1981 138,995,000١٩٨١
1990 ١٩٩٠

and
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces9566.html

YearMintageVGFVFXFUNCExchange
1392 (1972) 250,000١٩٧٢


Both coins have on their reverse dates in AH and Gregorian calendar.
It looks strange, that there is no Islamic dates at all in the first one
and no Islamic dates in digits, used in Arabic based languages.

Both descriptions contradict the used at the Numista style. Here is the example:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces22390.html

YearMintageVGFVFXFUNCExchange
1348 (1929) BP500,000١٣٤٨ - ١٩٢٩

When the dates are given in both eras - local and Gregorian on the coin, then they are described the same way in the date distribution section both in Arabic digits and digits, used in Arabic based languages.

This style does not permit to conduct search correctly. It is hard to guess, which of the dates are chosen seldom in the articles.

It is better for the referee and the site constructor meet together and correct the whole country, but not just these two articles.

I totally agree. There are many examples for this. The problem is that just catalogue admins can change it because these are verified year lists.

It's the same in the Egyptian catalogue. It's bloody annoying to someone with OCD tendencies like me.

The problem is not solved and there is no suggestions from the Numista Authorities.

The question is

Out of these 2 types of articles:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces8357.html
with correct dates description

and the majority of articles of this view
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6575.html
with completely wrong dates description

which the Numista prefers to leave? These two different styles make the usage of the inner search useless. Though google search at least works.

When the answer will be given, if necessary, the community may help to make the proper corrections.

Will look back at this in few days time. However, from just quick read, it seems to be inconsistency issue, which will be discussed by board of particular new administration once it takes place. That new administration could and will provide answer to "what Numista wants".

I agree, the lack of Islamic dates is a bit inconvenient.

I often try to look for Islamic coins (both for identifying and for entering) by searching for [numeric denomination] [Islamic date] - there are few non-Islamic coins from, say, the 1390s [on Numista, anyway], so I get, at worst, a dozen results that I can easily look through. (If I'm entering, I might well click on one of the search suggestions directly.)
However, if the Islamic date doesn't actually appear in the listing, the coin wouldn't come up on such a search (something that happened to me recently with a coin from Iraq).

Sometimes I have to look through the date listing to figure out which date my coin is. (I keep forgetting which of the V-shaped digits is 7 and which is 8 [the one looking like a V is 7] and what the inverted 2 is [it's a 6, apparently]. And I don't always remember that the 0-shaped digit is actually a 5. It's usually the case that at least one of the dates doesn't have digits I can't recall, however.) So dates written in the original digits are also helpful (and Nepalese entries suck because they very rarely have that).