A line in mintage is missing USSR 60th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution 1 Rouble [résolu]

The article
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4593.html

has a lot of absurd.

1. The denomination is 'rouble' (correctly mentioned in the article), and not 'ruble' as it is mentioned in other places . The USSR Authorities never allowed use any other spelling of the name of their currency. See for example https://en.numista.com/catalogue/images/58077c5ebf7c3.jpg

2. It was strange to read that the coin depicts something with "soviet science promotion". Maybe the author means "Soviet" but definitely not promotion. The Authorities declare achievements of the new Socialist system.

3. I worked with the coin of lithium atom, presenting it at scientific conference, adding it to a publication and using it during lessons of numismatic curriculum. Obviously it is in catalogs, such as Sorokin 5.1. That copy had small traces of circulation.

That is why it is completely strange to see, that there are no tracks about the coin in catalog, instead there is a nonsense about 'probe ruble': most probably the author means 'rouble' but definitely not probe: it was minted in large amount, it was distributed and then it was called back: everything in reality was far from probe coinage.

As the results
- The name of currency should be changed into 'rouble'.
- The Comments should be rewritten with a line

Some copies found their way to collections.

can be added in the description of the first type of the issue, until the Numista team consider the difference and the story behind the issue deserves a separate article at all, which it does.

- the mintage has to get one more line:
Year Comment
1977 1st issue with lithium atom. Rare

Point 1. right
Point 2. progress
Point 3. only your word of it
Point 4. we don't use "rare" or any other subjective "measurements" . Difficult to obtain is better.

The last post mentioned something strange:
Point 3. only your word of it

is not clear.
First, it does not indicate, that the Numista team creates a line or an article for the coin.
Second, it shows that the Author of the post follows destructive policy: the coin is published, its existence is confirmed. A correspondent link is presented. To accuse "only your word of it" means not to read the post. Here we have demonstration of wrong style, which was already discussed in Polite demand to substitute a referee (https://en.numista.com/forum/topic51669.html).

As for the word 'rare' with respect to this coin it is completely correct. Regarding the coin many years later since its introduction to scientific circulation in 1997, Sorokin's catalog in 2012 qualify it as 'unique'.

This whole post is absurd. Not only I got contradictory request (requesting deleting names of the elements), but addition of lines was open.

I added that line anyway just now. If there are typos, feel free to request their change. I consider this fixed, thanks for new line addition.