National monument numbers are not distinct
Currently, the per-county monument lists in en:wp are based on the corresponding lists of the official index of per-county monument lists. Take, for example, this list for County Kerry where a summary of the database is given including a all fields. The seventh and last field is for the national monument number (this corresponds to this property) which I would like to quote in full:
- When a monument is taken into State ownership or guardianship its details are added to a National Monuments Register. In the earlier years, when a number of monuments were taken in State care at the same time, they were all given the same register number e.g. the monuments on the Dingle peninsula are all registered under number 221. Similarly, groups of monument such as the passage tombs at Lough Crew will have the same registration number. The register is not entirely up-to-date with the result that some of the more recent acquisitions have yet to be assigned numbers.
This is the reason why some of the Irish national monument numbers are assigned to multiple objects. The above mentioned national monument number 221 has been, among many others, assigned to Arraglen Ogham Stone (Q48797670), Ballywiheen (Q2128513), and Caherdorgan North (Q1025759). Hence, we should drop the distinct value constraint. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
This property has currently a format constraint with the following regular expression “[1-9]\d*(,\d+)?” which was in the original proposal. Currently, the per-county monument lists in en:wp are based on the corresponding lists of the official index of per-county monument lists which were released in 2009. Take, for example, this list for County Mayo where we find national monument numbers with differ from the format constraint as they are suffixed by a upper case letter, e.g. “222A” for Burriscarra Abbey (Q28232580), “222B” for Castle Carra (Q28232579), or “99A” for St. Dairbhile's Church (Q17276540) wheras “99” has been assigned to Inishglora (Q3778602).
As pointed out by MisterSynergy and refered to in the original proposal there exists also an older spreadsheet from 2003 which uses suffixes, followed by varying number of digits. These numbers are matched by the regular expression above. In this spreadsheet, St. Dairbhile's Church (Q17276540) got the number “99,01” and Inishglora (Q3778602) was assigned “99,02”. However, I haven't seen these numbers anywhere else and this list from 2003 has apparently been superseded by those from 2009 referenced above.
Hence, I would like to suggest to replace the regular expression by “[1-9]\d*[A-Z]?” to accomodate suffixed numbers like “222A” or “222B” and to use the numbers from 2009 until the next update. Any objections? --AFBorchert (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)