Talk:Postage stamps of Ireland

older entries

Let me be the first to say: very nice!! I just have one suggestion - there are links to common words like "acquire" and "challenge" that aren't really necessary - worse, they don't usually link to the topics you think. If you like, I'll do a pass that fixes up some that kind of style detail, and then I think it's worth nominating as a featured article. Stan 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy for you to do that. What? You think it good enough to be nominated. Not bad for about 3 months work I suppose. I still have some additional work to do, small but there are some improvements in content like the Exhibition souvenir details and maybe a couple of extra images. ww2censor 18:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Eire v Ireland

Can anyone give the reasoning why the name Ireland is never put on the Irish postage stamps, I can't find it in the article. One would think that both names Eire and Ireland would appear printed on the postage stamps, if only to promote the name of Ireland, which is the international name, vis a vis tourism, broader recognition and awareness, etc. etc. I remember once meeting a Asian stamp-collector who didn't know that Ireland was Eire.-MelForbes 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are some reference to this in Names of the Irish state referring to the use of Éire (not Eire as you wrote - perhaps you don't know how to make the accents) before 1949 on both stamps and coins and this tradition has continued. The name is also used on Irish, and Euro-Irish, passports, on the presidential seal, and on all Irish (and since 2002 Euro-Irish) coins and other official state documents issued since 1937. Before then, Saorstát Éireann, the Irish translation of Irish Free State, featured amongst other uses. To my knowledge very few countries (South Africa is the only one comes to mind right now) have the county name in two languages. I don't have any references to hand for you, so hope the idea of continuity of use will suffice. ww2censor 02:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple of copyediting comments

A couple of things, as I find them:

• Is it "unoverprinted" or "un-overprinted"? Both are in the text; it should be consistent. WP:MOS now has a pretty thorough section on when and how to hyphenate that may be useful.

• Used hyphen in all as that seems like the appropriate way if I read the WP:MOS correctly

• In the overprints section there's an inline link. Can this be converted to a cite?

• Put the web cite inline

More if I find anything. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion: in the commemoratives section, the following sentence fragment appears: "This policy has been put aside and there have been several such issues; " I suggest that this needs some phrase such as "and since 1995 there have been several such issues". I don't know if 1995 is the right year so I didn't make the edit myself. Mike Christie (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually 1995 is correct and I add that

A question: miniature sheets -- the text says they could comprise "from one to sixteen stamps on a sheet". Is this correct? Could a sheet consist of a single stamp?

• Actually, yes. How about this image of a one stamp miniature sheet?

Mike Christie (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ww2censor 04:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your changes in response to the above look good; that miniature sheet is interesting and answers my question.

One more item: in the airmail paragraph, should that last stamp price be "6p" or "6d"? Mike Christie (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed from "p" to "d"

Another question. This is hard to understand:

Collectors should note that, without knowing the date of use and specific colour, the currency is not stated on the labels except in Irish as pingin for penny without distinguishing £.s.d or decimal currency. For this reason the 1, 3, 5 and 8 pence values are seen in two different colours depending on the issue. Except for the sixth issue that has Éire written on the labels, there is no explicit identity of the country; also, all words are in Irish.

What does "without knowing the date of use and specific colour" mean? Do you mean that if you know when the label was used, and you know the colour, then you can tell what amount of postage due was being collected, but otherwise you cannot? If so, what does it mean to say that the Irish pingin amount was stated on the label? Surely that would be enough? I'm sure I'm missing something here; if you explain it I'll try to rewrite it. Mike Christie (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite messy indeed. I have copyedited it drestically to create a clearer picture. Have a look and see if it works now.

Also, I changed "190 degrees" to "180 degrees" in the booklet section; I was pretty sure that was just a typo, but I mention it here just in case. Mike Christie (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted

I did some modifications to the watermark section, including eliminating some white space. This has made the picture run into the next section, which is a little ugly. You may want to tweak this some more, though this shouldn't cause any opposes at FAC; I don't like it in my own articles though sometimes I find I have to live with it. Anyway, you might just want to revert my changes here, though I do think there were some problems of sequence to be fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added a break after the section to force the next section down just enough to clear the image. this should not be a problem unless a viewer has a very high resolution screen set.

You have clearly deliberately treated "stationery" as a plural noun. Is this a philatelic convention? It seems quite non-standard to me, but I thought I'd check with you. Mike Christie (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have always known it as stationery, it looks correct here too.

We would say you were a "hawk-eye" with what you can spot. Working on a topic for so long, one tends to get too close to it an can miss things that other editors see straight away an not clear or errors. I appreciate all you help. Let's hope it is all worth it and that when the 2 outstanding reviewers return to finish their work they will be suitably satisfied. Thanks again for all the work. Cheers ww2censor 02:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Another question, on this sentence:

A premium over the normal postal rate has been charged on airletters to which an impressed stamp has been applied.

I'm not sure what you mean by "has been"; do you mean intermittently? Or "has always been"? Or should it just be "is", or "is currently"? Mike Christie (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Most, with an impression were charged a premium, so I rewrote it in cleaner language

I will look at that now ww2censor 02:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- hope you don't mind all these questions. Here's another, from Stamped-to-Order: in "an official post-paid indicia" you are using "indicia" as a singular. I'm used to seeing it as a plural; as with the use of "stationery", can you tell me if this is a philatelic use or just an error?

I will have to think about that one a little bit and look up some stuff here, if you hang on or come back in a while.

OK here is the answer from Linns.com, a good philatelic source.

Also, in the next section, you have an external link to the "Philatelic Bureau" of An Post. I took a look at List of philatelic bureaus and found that the Irish one links to An Post; is this an error in that list or is this two meanings of "philatelic bureau"? In any case, you might consider making it an inline citation using the web cite format; you might unlink it if there's no WP target for it. Mike Christie (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

An Post is the stamp issuing authority but the web site for the philatelic bureau is different than the main site address and I don't think it is linked anywhere else in Wikipedia though I will look at the An Post article. ww2censor 02:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, last questions, I think, on the last sections.

• By "less than 1,000,000 were printed" do you mean less than 1,000,000 high value stamps, rather then first day covers? I think you must mean that, in which case I suggest adding "stamps" after "high value" earlier in that sentence. Actually, that would be a little clunky still, so if I'm interpreting it right you might rephrase it like this: "First Day covers, especially commemoratives, are popular though the older issues are quite hard to find as less than a million of the high value stamps were printed in the early years (1929–1940s)." If it's necessary to emphasize that a million is a low number, I'd say what it's low in comparison to (such as the number of the low value stamps issued), and ideally give a comparative number, such as " . . . in the early years (1929-1940s), a far lower number than the hundreds of millions of stamps printed for most of the low values" or something similar.
• "Irish collectors can also expand their horizons by collecting stamps with an Irish connection, Irish people on stamps, etc." I'm not sure you really need this but didn't like to cut it as this is not a copyediting question: the article is about Irish stamps, not stamp-collecting per se. I'd suggest that this comment will be applicable to every "Postage stamps of . . . " article, and so probably doesn't belong in any of them, but should instead be in a general article about what philatelists collect.
• This sentence is awkward: "There are differences between these numbering systems that may sequence the stamps differently and may include or exclude some stamps,[32] usually varieties that some catalog publishers think do not belong in a general catalogue, from the listings." The "from the listings" at the end takes quite a bit of parsing. I suggest this:

There are differences between these numbering systems that result in a different sequence of the stamps in each listing, with some stamps included on some lists but not on others[32]—usually varieties that the publishers think do not belong in a general catalogue.

This is not perfect, and I hope I haven't messed up the sense, but I think it's an improvement. One reason I didn't make this change was that I wasn't sure about what parts of the sentence were covered by the citation, so I thought I'd let you move it about as you see fit.

I saw your other edits and will have another look at those in a minute. Mike Christie (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Postage due

I have really enjoyed reading this article, and I hope my edits have improved it somewhat; I also hope I'm not being too irritating with the questions. I have only one remaining concern and it relates to the Postage Due section, which you've substantially reworked.

The revised version is much clearer, but I still am not completely sure I understand it. I think the simplest thing to do is for me to rewrite it here; if this is correct and you like the rewrite, use it if you want; if not, then you can correct my misunderstanding.

Surcharges imposed by the Irish post office on mail bearing insufficient pre-paid postage had the postage due collected by the use of these labels. Since 1925 there have been six series printed, with the design remaining the same until 1980, though the colour and watermarks changed. The Irish word pingin, for penny, is used in both £.s.d and decimal currency, but because it has the same meaning in each, the value on the label does not indicate whether the label was issued before or after decimalization. Hence identifying the issue of a label requires further information: if a collectors knows the date of use, the existence of a watermark and if so which type, and the specific colour, identification will be easier. For example, the 3d value was blue between 1940 and 1969, and stone colour from 1971 until 1980; it changed from a watermarked to a non-watermark paper in 1978. Additionally the 1, 5 and 8 pence values are also seen in two different colours depending on the issue, while the 1/2d, 1d, 2d and 6d are seen with both varieties of watermark. Except for the sixth issue, which has the word Éire in the design, there is no explicit country identity on any of the others. The first four series use only Irish words.

Sorry, I didn't preserve your links or refs in the above -- I should have done that.

As I said, I hope this has been useful, and good luck at FAC. I will take another look at the whole article and the other FAC comments and may support, though I don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to be a very reliable commenter on matters of content. Mike Christie (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been exceedingly helpful and useful. Thanks you so much. The clarity of other people questioning meanings is really great as it clarifies my mind too, though I must admit much of my editing is done late at night when this brain of mine is a bit weary, but I tend to be a late bird anyway. I think the content knowledge will have to be taken on face value as there are few experienced and active philatelic editors around except Stan and I who seem to have years of experience as well as a decent philatelic library for research. It is really the structure, clarity and whether it is decently written prose, which I hope it is now, that will make or break its WP:FAC fate. After all this I am sure our paths will cross again as I am rather WikiAddicted. BTW, I was looking at some of your Anglo-Saxon FAs and found them very interesting indeed—all stuff I did not know anything about. That is one of the things I love about this place. Cheers. ww2censor 03:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

More copyedits

I've had a go at the lead; I think I skipped this before. I moved some stuff into what appeared to me to be better chronological order. Please revert and/or fix if I messed anything up. I will try to have another pass at the rest over the weekend. Mike Christie (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, reverted part of your initial intro sentence - the article does not include any pre-independence issues of GB. ww2censor 04:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

OK -- I see it does not; but there is a short section in the article that describes the identification of GB stamps used in Ireland. That's what I was attempting to refer to. Is there a concise way to mention this in the lead? Or do you think it does not need to be mentioned? Mike Christie (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the sentence "These stamps, and all subsequent British issues, were available for use in Ireland until the new Irish Government assumed power in 1922." not cover this succinctly? Maybe change to "were used in Ireland" ww2censor 13:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I made that change; it's an improvement. What I was trying to say was that the coverage of the GB used in Ireland issues seemed at odds with the definition in the first sentence which clearly excludes them. However, I see that the section heading is "Background", so I think it's fine as it is -- that's just the right way to handle. I just didn't notice the "Background" heading when I made the comment.

More later today; I should get time as my daughter is reading the new Harry Potter so the house will be quiet. Mike Christie (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL ww2censor 15:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

GB used in Ireland

I just reworded a couple of sentences to this:

For identification purposes, it may not be necessary for the stamp to be affixed to a cover, which would make the complete postmark visible. It may be possible to identify the town of use from a partial postmark if enough of the postmark is showing.

This isn't ideal, for a couple of reasons. One is the repetition of "postmark" in the second sentence; it's not awful, since it's not a common word, but I'd like to avoid it. In looking at rephrasing it I discovered that I was slightly unclear about the meaning, so here's a possible rewording that I'd like to check with you before making it.

The points made (I've reordered them) are:

• A town of use may have a characteristic postmark
• From 1840 to 1844 no text or numeral in the cancellation identified any cancel as Irish
• From 1840 to 1844 all issued stamps were cancelled with the Maltese Cross
• The Maltese Cross cancellations can in some cases be identified with certain Irish towns (listed)
• From 1844 onwards all cancels contained text or numerals that identified a cancel as Irish (is this correct?)
• Affixed stamps have complete postmarks
• Complete postmarks are easier to identify
• It may be possible to identify a postmark without it being complete
• The characteristic postmark may be identified from a partial postmark

Looking at this, I think there are two separate sets of information being transmitted; one about the nature and identifiability of the cancellations, and one about the covers and whether a partial can still be identified. The latter is secondary since it is irrelevant without the former. So here's a possible restructuring of the second and third paragraphs; let me know what you think of this:

From 1840 to 1844, the Penny Black, and other stamps issued, were cancelled with the Maltese Cross cancellation. There was no text or numeral to help identify any of these cancels as Irish, but some Maltese Crosses are uniquely identifiable with certain Irish towns. Belfast, Eyrecourt, Cork, Hollymount, Limerick and Mullingar are some towns that had these distinctive obliterators. From 1844 on, the cancellation marks used included text or numerals that identified the town of cancellation. Cancels of both types are easier to identify if the stamp is affixed to a cover, since this makes the complete postmark visible, but a stamp no longer affixed to a cover may still permit identification of the town of use if enough of the postmark can be seen on the stamp itself. However, Postal history collectors prefer a complete cover because a more complete story can be gleaned from the other postal markings, and a complete cover with the stamp affixed is usually worth significantly more than a single stamp.

Is this accurate, first of all? I.e. is it the case that all post-1844 cancels contained identifying marks? Second, I wonder if the final sentence in the above paragraph is strictly necessary; it's an aside about philately that doesn't really pertain to your subject. It's not irrelevant but you might consider cutting it.

I think the above could be split into two paragraphs at "Cancels of both types" if the white space looks better that way. That's a long sentence, too; it could be split at "But" by making it ". . . visible. A stamp no longer . . . " but I think a long sentence is OK for flow at that point.

What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

OK initially let's look at the first sentence. Maybe it would be better to write: For identification purposes, it may be necessary for the stamp to be still affixed to a cover because a partial postmark usually hinders knowing the town of use that a complete visible cancellation may provide. Shorter and more precise - no postmark x 2 ! BUT

For the next section I think it is best if I clarify some points but I think your new edit pretty much sums it all up especially if we leave out, or change, some of the repetitive words if possible.

Between 1840 and 1844 Maltese Cross obliterators were used in many Irish towns (not all) AND those town listed, Belfast, Eyrecourt, Cork, Hollymount, Limerick and Mullingar had distinctive obliterators. All other towns were not distinguishable from one another, unless some other textural marking was also on a cover. So If the single stamp has one of the distinctive town Maltese Crosses we can say it came from Belfast, Cork or ... etc, as appropriate.

When post-1844 postmarks were used they initially had a numeral that was identifiable with a specific town or later text in the postmark to assist identity.

So let's drop the last collector related sentence.

This is my copyedit:

From 1840 to 1844, the Penny Black, and other stamps issued, were obliterated with the Maltese Cross cancellation. There was no text or numeral to help identify any of these cancels as Irish, but some Maltese Crosses are uniquely identifiable with certain Irish towns. Belfast, Eyrecourt, Cork, Hollymount, Limerick and Mullingar are some towns that used distinctive obliterators. From 1844 on, the cancels used included text or numerals that identified the post town. Cancels of both types are easier to identify if the stamp is still affixed to a cover, since this makes the complete postmark visible, but a stamp no longer affixed to a cover may still permit identification of the town of use if enough of the postmark can be seen on the stamp itself.

How's that ww2censor 17:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Looks pretty good. A possible tweak would be to connect the "certain Irish towns" with the succeeding list, perhaps like this:

From 1840 to 1844, the Penny Black, and other stamps issued, were obliterated with the Maltese Cross cancellation. There was no text or numeral to help identify any of these cancels as Irish, but some Maltese Crosses are uniquely identifiable with certain Irish towns, including Belfast, Eyrecourt, Cork, Hollymount, Limerick and Mullingar. From 1844 on, the cancels used included text or numerals that identified the post town. Cancels of both types are easier to identify if the stamp is still affixed to a cover, since this makes the complete postmark visible, but a stamp no longer affixed to a cover may still permit identification of the town of use if enough of the postmark can be seen on the stamp itself.

This allows the elimination of the second half of that sentence. I think there's technically a slight grammatical flaw here, since the "including" would more naturally refer to the Maltese crosses that are the subject of the preceding clause, but I think it's a legitimate colloquial usage.

However, if I understand your previous post, not every pre-1844 cancel in Ireland used the Maltese Cross, so the first sentence isn't quite right. So should it be something like this?

From 1840 to 1844, a Maltese Cross cancellation was sometimes used to obliterate the Penny Black and the other stamps issued. There was no text or numeral to help identify any cancels as Irish, but some of the Maltese Crosses obliterators are uniquely identifiable with certain Irish towns, including Belfast, Eyrecourt, Cork, Hollymount, Limerick and Mullingar. From 1844 on, the cancels used included text or numerals that identified the post town. Cancels of both types are easier to identify if the stamp is still affixed to a cover, since this makes the complete postmark visible, but a stamp no longer affixed to a cover may still permit identification of the town of use if enough of the postmark can be seen on the stamp itself.

Have fun gardening! It's too wet here. Mike Christie (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Leave the first edit because now we are getting too deep into postal history. The stamps were all supposed to be obliterated by the Maltese Cross but occasionally, IIRC (I would need to check and it could take some time) some offices improperly used pen-cancels or older cancelling devices.

My son in Ireland told me they had 46 days of rain so I hope it stops by September when I come there and to London for my grandson's christening. ww2censor 17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made the edit; I used the first of my two versions above. I agree that getting into the cancellation details would be excessive. Good luck on the rain -- I used to live in Wales, and I know how wet it can get over there. Mike Christie (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sinn Fein

Two questions about this:

Between 1907 and 1916, Sinn Fein, the principal national organisation at the time, issued propaganda labels symbolising Irish nationhood. Their use was forbidden by Post Office regulations.

Should that be "principal nationalist organization"? And would it be accurate to expand the second sentence to say "Their use as stamps was forbidden", or was there some broader ban, such as a general ban on the display of nationalism?

I'm also curious to know whether "principal" is accurate: the "early days" section in the article on Sinn Fein seems to imply that they were not a major group, and clicking on the Easter Rising link led me to think that perhaps some of the other groups were as prominent as Sinn Fein.

Also, shouldn't it be "Sinn Féin"? I know nothing about Gaelic accents, but I see an accent is used on the Sinn Féin article.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You are good, but hold on, one at a time, I have to go do some gardening!

Those are Feldman's words from his book, but perhaps the use of "one of the national organisations at the time" avoids any POV issue, and yes, there should be an accent on "Féin". Feldman goes on to say: "These labels were the subject of Post Office regulations which forbade their usage, and are generally regarded as Sinn Féin "stamps"." Your point is better made by saying that "Their use as stamps was forbidden by Post Office regulations." with the ref as here. I never heard of any anti-nationalism display rules. TTFM ww2censor 17:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I made the edit per the discussion above. Also did some other tweaks at the same time. Mike Christie (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Forerunners

I'm using section heads to split up these questions for readability.

I just spent some time thinking about this paragraph:

In 1912 the Imperial Union labels showing a larger harp and female figure are believed to have been printed in Manchester as a counter to the previous Sinn Féin labels. Labels appeared after the Home Rule Bill for Ireland was passed in parliament, by an extreme body opposed to the setting up of an independent Irish Republic. Three men, Allen, Larkin and O'Brien, were popularly known as The Manchester Martyrs: their portraits, against an Irish tricolour background, were prepared by Irish Republicans and are shown on these labels issued in 1916. Feldman states that forgeries are common. Following the Easter Rising of 1916, American sympathisers printed eight ERIE PUIST labels showing the seven portraits of the prominent leaders and a harp and shamrock label. The spelling ERIE for ÉIRE could be due to the hasty preparation though this is a correct, old Irish, spelling.

Here's a candidate rewrite; I am uncertain about a couple of facts so I am putting the rewrite here for review rather than making the change directly.

In 1912, labels inscribed "Imperial Union" appeared, with a design of a larger harp and female figure. These labels, expressing unionist sentiments, are believed to have been printed in Manchester as a counter to the Sinn Féin labels. After the Home Rule Bill for Ireland was passed in parliament, an extreme Irish Republican body issued labels in 1916 with the portraits of three nationalist heroes known as The Manchester Martyrs against an Irish tricolour background. Forgeries of these labels are common. Following the Easter Rising of 1916, American sympathisers printed eight ERIE PUIST labels showing the seven portraits of the prominent leaders and a harp and shamrock label. The spelling ERIE for ÉIRE could be due to hasty preparation though this is a correct, old Irish, spelling.

Notes on the above:

• Is it accurate to call the label-issuers "extreme"? Is that controversial?
• I cut the Martyrs' names; it was hard to fit them into the flow, and I finally decided they weren't necessary. If they are a useful or well-known aspect of the label description then they should probably be added back.
• I cut the attribution to Feldman; I think the reference suffices.
• I cut "the" from "the hasty preparation"; I assume this is the intended meaning, although if you know that the preparation was indeed hasty it should be changed back.
• I cut the phrase "opposed to the setting up of an independent Irish Republic" and replaced it with a link to unionism as a way of eliminating what is essentially background explanation from the flow of the text.

Also, I found this page asserting that the Imperial Union labels are most likely whimsical rather than political; is this a reliable theory that could be mentioned?

As ever, please delete/revert wherever I've messed up. Mike Christie (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it except for "extreme" which is likely POV. Regarding the whimsical notion, you will see that Wolf only uses Feldman as a source and his sentence is confusing as it says "in fact, it seems probable". Is it fact or probability? A dispute, maybe, but not both. Let me go back and read Feldman on this. If I find anything different I will post here. ww2censor 17:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I made this edit too, cutting "extreme"; if you decide the "whimsical" theory is worth adding it can be put in later. Mike Christie (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitives

Some more detail on a recent edit in case you want to revert: I unlinked some words in the definitives para, and uncapitalized them, but it appears you had them capitalized because they represented the title (in some official sense? or in catalog listings?) of the definitive series. I think that the way you had it was an unhappy compromise -- if they're to be capped it should be evident to the reader that that represents a title. In lowercase, it didn't look useful to have both "heritage" and "treasures" included, since they mean something similar to a reader in this context, so I took out "treasures". I do think the links were not useful. Mike Christie (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Airmail

Can you explain this sentence to me?

Seven Irish airmail stamps were issued between 1948 and 1965 in the 1d, 3d, 6d, 8d, 1/-, 1/3 and 1/5 values. Some individual values did not pay a specific airmail rate but they were the only airmail stamps ever issued.

I think it means that the values listed do not necessarily correspond to whatever the airmail rates happened to be, so if you wanted an airmail stamp for 11d you had to buy an 8d and a 3d. If so, I'll have a go at rewording it. Mike Christie (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What it means is that some there were no airmail rates for some of the stamps issued, i.e., 1d and 3d, all the others paid specific airmail rates. Does that clarify it? ww2censor 23:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I revised the no specific airmail rates for some stamps sentence. Thanks for everything. ww2censor 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Postage due issues

The different issues are all described as First issue without an introductory "The". Is this a standard to describe issues in philately? It would seem more natural to say "The first issue . . . ." Mike Christie (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Originally I had several subsectiosn for each issue but based on the comments of Pagrashtak who thought there were to many sections, I reduced the bold issue heading into the text but obviously without intergrating it properly into the sentences. I will do something with it now. ww2censor 14:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think I'm done; I can't find anything else to look at. The airmail sentence might still be tweaked; I'll think about that some more. Other than that, good luck with FA. If it doesn't get through this time I'm sure it will next time. Mike Christie (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting blip

Looks like this: "The spelling ERIE, an old Irish spelling without the accent, for ÉIRE could have because of hasty preparation." is a copyediting blip; not sure what the intended edit was but it's clearly a mistake. Mike Christie (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it less understandable than previously? Maybe need to add "and letters transposed". Would that be better? User:SandyGeorgia has weighed in a given some more suggestions that I have taken on board. ww2censor 02:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing "been" after the "have": that would make sense. I do think this is a clumsier version of the sentence though; "The spelling ERIE for ÉIRE could be due to hasty preparation though this is a correct, old Irish, spelling" seemed fine to me. I think you were trying to eliminate a "due to"? I'd say this one is OK. Anyway, even if you leave it as is, the "been" is definitely needed. Mike Christie (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will add the "been" and yes, I was trying to get rid of some "due to"s expecially for Tony. Thanks ww2censor 02:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ireland

Does the current stamp include Northern Ireland? --Chickenfeed9 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's part of a different country (UK). Countries never use each other's stamps, for a variety of reasons. (Might be worthwhile for article to clarify that Northern Ireland not part of this story.) Stan 18:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you need more clarification but under "Stamp issuing authorities" it states "Between 1922 and 1983 Oifig an Phoist, the Irish Post Office, a section of the Department of Posts & Telegraphs (P&T), issued all postage stamps in the 26 counties of Ireland." Maybe you need it spelled out that the other 6 counties of NI were excluded. ww2censor 04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for the title change

In response to this edit (Undid revision 174001469 by Michael Romanov (talk) - what's the title? - not postal history) done by Ww2censor, let me suggest the change of the article title. Currently, it's Postage stamps of Ireland. But if you look at its content, the article is definitely about certain key aspects of the Irish postal history. So, unless there is a separate article on Postal history of Ireland, I propose to rename the given article to Postage stamps and postal history of Ireland. Thanks. --Michael Romanov (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

When I started this page I specifically worked on a stamps only article. Sure there are a few postal history statements that are necessary to put the stamps into context. I am working on a postal history only article but it is by no means ready as other things have intervened. You will see that there is a red links in the see also section. that is for the future article on postal history. That is the reason for the revert. ww2censor (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Postage stamps of Northern Ireland

I have added a little see also at the top to a new little article as that seems to be where such links are supposed to go according to guidelines. It seems to me it might be a bit over prominent there. Would in the text or in a section near the end be better? (Msrasnw (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

I moved it to 'See also' section. Thank you. --Michael Romanov (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Our opening implies to me that our use of Postage stamps of Ireland is in some senses an official and accepted definition (and it excludes the NI stamps). But to the casual and uninformed reader (eg me) might our title not it imply that the NI stamps should be mentioned and discussed in this article? I feel now the see also at the bottom is a bit too remote a mention - just as before was too prominant. Perhaps a rewording at the top - and a note something like:

This article does not discuss country definitives for Nothern Ireland for those see Postage stamps of Northern Ireland

Or perhaps they should be discussed in a little section - perhaps in the British stamps used in Ireland section - but that would throw the Chronology.

Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

I would better ask the article's main author Ww2censor about these issues. --Michael Romanov (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll just leave it with the new little note there for now and see what is thought best. But looking at it I think some proper mention in the article of the topic even if not properly discussed would be better than this note. Also our opening line perhaps could be adjusted a bit but will let the article's main author decide what is best (Msrasnw (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Postage stamps of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929121534/http://www.stampprinters.info/SPI_Country_I.htm to http://www.stampprinters.info/SPI_Country_I.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Postage stamps of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223025521/http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/set1T/set1T.html to http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/set1T/set1T.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223025445/http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/set9T/set9T.html to http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/set9T/set9T.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103165414/http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/overprints/intro.html to http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/overprints/intro.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630205459/http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/index.html to http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817052227/http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/forerunners/contents.html to http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/forerunners/contents.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817002953/http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/overprints/contents.html to http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/overprints/contents.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

FA sweeps

Serious verifiability issues with this one (many cn tags) there may be other issues as well. (t · c) buidhe 23:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with buidhe's assessment above, and I will note that many of the sources listed are not used as inline citations, causing concern that the article is not comprehensive. I am going to relist this at WP:FARGIVEN. Is anyone interested in addressing the concerns? If not, it can be nominated at WP:FAR. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There are just 6 citation needed tags. That's not MANY, actually really quite few for such a detailed article that has citations on virtually everything else. Buidhe, what are your other issues that you didn't mention? I'll have a look at them in the next week or so as I am quite busy with other matters. Sources listed that are not used as for inline citations are intended for comprehensive further reading by interested visitors. ww2censor (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: thanks for taking a look at this. Regarding the comprehensive comments, 1b of the featured article criteria states that a featured article is comprehensive, and neglects no major facts. While I am not a subject matter expert on this topic, I am concerned when a featured article contained multiple sources that are recommended reading, but not included as inline citations. Instead, I would expect that the information from those sources is included in the article and cited to those sources. Also, above I said that many of the sources are not used as citations, but upon closer inspection it seems like some that are listed in sources are used, but the mix of reference styles causes error messages on my sfn/harv ref script. Can the citation style used in the article be standardised, so that either sfn template are used or removed? This will also help us determine which sources have not been incorporated into the article yet. Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Z1720: I'm sorry but you have lost me. I don't know exactly what you mean about the mix of reference style. Most of this was done many years ago but with newer additions that may use a different style I find better to use now. You may be better off to explain in detail, with examples, on my talk page. ww2censor (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Sorry for the late response, real life has been busy. If you look at the wikicode, ref 13 uses a harvnb template so that the citation is shorter. The idea is that the short citation is shown in references (as "Freeman & Stubbs 1922, p. 19") then the full citation is in the sources (as "Freeman, F. F.; Stubbs, T. T. (April 1922). Provisional Issue: Irish Free State Stamps (1st ed.). Dublin, Ireland: Mint Stamp Company.") However, ref 46 does not do this: the page numbers for that reference are in the body of the article, inserted with an rp template, while the full citation is in the references section, and then duplicated (needlessly, in my opinion) in the sources section. Ref 5 also does something completely different, where the page numbers are listed in the reference section, and the full citation is not in the sources section. These are three different citation styles: in my opinion, the article needs to pick one style and stick with it throughout. Z1720 (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Z1720: Thanks for explaining but I think that will be a rather big job to reformat all citations into the same style. I think this has happened because over time I started to use different and maybe better styles as I learned what I feel are a better reference format. Right now I have other fish to fry and don't think I devote the time to dealing with the reference styles but will try to at least deal with the missing citations that are tagged so the article is not demoted from FA. Perhaps over time I can reformat the citations into one style that no one has ever mentioned since it became an FA in 2007. ww2censor (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Z1720: I have not forgotten about you mentioning the citation issues. I've had a look at it but cannot see an easy way to modify the existing inline citations to remove the harv errors in the sources section. Perhaps using an sfr template would be better but I've not used them and I can't see a way to reformat using that. I specifically looked at the first inline citation of the "Feldman, David (1968). Handbook of Irish Philately" source with its initial entry inline which is currently 7a. If you could reformat just that one I could then see how to resolve the issue I'd be really grateful. Without such help I don't think I can resolve this. Thanks in advance. ww2censor (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

For Feldman, I would say that, since it has a full citation in ref 7, it does not need to be listed in the Sources, and should be removed. In the past I would have been a lot more strict and insisted that everything was formatted the same, but FAC seemed to have taken a different view in recent months, so as long as the citation is complete, and not redundant (like Feldman is) than I'm OK with it. Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Z1720: Ok, I see what you mean about the Feldman source but that seems like an exception. When looking at the bottom 4 source publications of Meredith, Munk, Reynolds and Summers, they are not used as full citations but have the harv errors. How do I deal with them? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: These sources should be explored and either used as inline citations (if able to) or removed (if they can't add information to the article.) Z1720 (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Z1720: Just to update you, I've been trying to figure out how to deal how to deal with the harv errors and think I've cracked it. Three items have been moved into a "further reading" section. I have just one source left, that is used quite a few times, and still needs doing. Besides that there is just one citation tag I have not figured out how to deal with. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)