Talk:Pagsanjan Falls stamp

A fact from Pagsanjan Falls stamp appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 4,525 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that due to an error, the Pagsanjan Falls stamp (pictured), one of a series supposedly showcasing places of interest in the Philippines, actually shows a waterfall in California?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/August.

Wikipedia

Philately Mid‑importance

	Philately portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhilatelyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilatelyTemplate:WikiProject PhilatelyPhilately articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Most sought after stamp!

Given that according to the page the estimated value of the stamp is $26.00, I think it is reasonable to challenge the validity of the statement that it is "one of the most sought after stamps in the world." Surely an important stamp would have produced a higher price than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.49.131 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edit that added the "coveted" information that is actually verified by the reference I did not agree with it. I tried to contact the editor but he was offline while the DYK was being prepared for the main page. My opinion is that the statement in the reference is not a neutral point of view and agree that a stamp currently catalogued by Scott could hardly be described as "one of the most coveted stamps in the world". Several other stamps in the list of postage stamps would quality well before this one. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being catalogued by Scott isn't a problem: the Jenny invert is Scott US C3a, and the Swedish treskilling and the British Guiana 1p are both Scott catalogued. However, I agree that this source is problematic and likely unreliable in this aspect. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation from the 2003 Scott US Specialized Catalogue: this is surely more reliable than some business website. I'd use a more up-to-date one, but I've not bought newer editions for some years: anyone have a newer edition? Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your new reference is older than the reference already there from which the $26 price was taken, so I will update the info to the 2008 Scott that I already used as reference. ww2censor (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template updated with something random from the article; I hope you don't mind this. It's technically not cited in the way it's supposed to be (with an in-line citation at the end of the sentence for hook facts), so if one can be added it would be great. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The original verified DYK hook was: " ... that the 18 cent Pagsanjan Falls stamp (pictured) is a design error where the wrong image of Vernal Fall, in Yosemite National Park, was used instead of the correct image of the Philippine Pagsanjan Falls?" ww2censor (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catalogue update; I noticed that, but I didn't know if it were the listing for #357 or some other page. Best to be safe and let the person who placed that reference check the source :-) Thanks. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]