Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archive Created Thurs 27 July 2006

Some Project Aims

{{SampleWikiProject}}

This is mainly a writeup of the rules I've been applying when doing philatelic articles, should help make sense of things if someone else takes an interest in the subject. Stan 19:33, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Stamp image uploads

Is there a standard file naming format for images of stamps uploaded to WP? I have a few scans that I'd like to use to illustrate some of the articles I've been writing as a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, but don't want to just give the images any old name.

If there isn't one already, perhaps something like Stamp_XXXXX_999999.jpg where XXXXX is the issuing country name (which would expand to as long as is needed for the country name) and 999999 is the Scott catalog number (including leading zeros). For example, Stamp_United_States_B00001.jpg would be the filename for the first US semipostal for breast cancer research, while Stamp_Prince_Edward_Island_000015.jpg would be the filename for Scott number 15 of stamps issued by PEI. I mention Scott numbers only because that's the set of catalogs that I've got handy and it provides a handy example. We could include the catalog name in the filename, but that seems a bit much.

Thoughts? slambo 22:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The format I've been using is "Stamp country year denomination disambig.jpg". Year and denomination alone is sufficient to uniquely identify a large number of the world's stamps, and the disambig can be something like "red" or "crown watermark" or "Robert Goddard". Scott is not used so much outside the US nor do they list every stamp ever issued, plus their number system is copyrighted and they go after anyone who seems like a threat, such as, say, a large repository of free philatelic information... See Category:Stamps on commons for a large collection of examples. Stan 12:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an ACTIVE Wikiproject

I've had to rescue us from the clutches of the "inactive project" list and to try and heighten our profile I've created the active project banner at the top of this page and the project page.

Do please make use of the project member banner on your user page. --Jack 22:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

And to prove it's active see category:Compendium of postage stamp issuers --Jack 08:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

And the next-to-be (yes, ok, slow) increase of Category:Stamp designers. Sebjarod 17:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Question

Should we put a notice on the talk pages of every article related to Philately? I noticed that WikiProject Numismatics did that. I'm thinking this might bring some attention to this WikiProject.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]
04:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Classification of WikiProject

Hi,

I notice that this WikiProject is classified on the main list of WikiProjects as being "Humanities" (it sits between "Media" and "Philosophy"). Is this intentional? I collect stamps myself, although I confess I haven't edited philately articles here at all, but I don't recall philately considering itself alonside philosophy! Can I suggest that "Hobbies and Recreation" might be a better place for people to find the project?

Incidentally, if you need an independent "outsider" to give an opinion on stamp articles, or you need a bit of extra input for a featured article candidate, please leave a message on my talk page – I'd be happy to help out a little. I don't know much postal history, I am a collector rather than a scholar, but I know GB and NSW stamps fairly well and a bit about stamps in general. Also incidentally, we at WP:Chem put our name on talk pages of chemical substance articles, it seems to be common practice. Cheers, Walkerma 06:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Stamp pages mentioning Lsd currency

I notice that on many pages about GB Commonwealth stamps using £sd currency, such as Postage stamps and postal history of New South Wales, Australia, Falkland Islands, etc, the d values are given in p. This occurs even when the description relates to a stamp image that clearly shows the denomination as 2d or similar. The pages on GB stamps and Canadian stamps use d, however. Is there a reason for the use of p for d? In British currency usually p designates "new pence" (after February 1971 in UK). Thanks, Walkerma 22:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In Ireland for instance, during the £sd period Irish stamps had the currency written as 'p' for pingin, the Irish for penny, and when decimalisation came in the 'p' was dropped, so you only see a numeral for the decimal penny as in this decimal set of definitive stamps that do not show a decimal penny, just the numeral. Prior to 1968 the penny was shown as a sterling 'd' for penny. However, it should be clear what currency is being referred to on all stamp pages. ww2censor 02:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I use "p" because Scott catalog does. It's a complete nuisance to try to keep track of the day/month/year of each nation's decimalization (UK is not the only place that changed). Any pedant wants to re-upload images or edit articles, be my guest. :-) Stan 03:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank for the info; I take it that it would be OK to change these where appropriate. I think SG usually uses the local currency symbol, and I figure if the stamp itself says "4d" it should be OK to correct the text to match with that. Cheers, Walkerma 06:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Postage stamp copyright

A useful task for this project is to research copyright status for stamp designs. About all we can say for sure is that 19th-c. images are most likely PD, and 21st-c. images are likely not. I've researched this some, but don't have a lot to show for it. It matters because PD images can go to commons, while ones still under copyright have to stay here. Stan 03:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A first step in this idea on commons : Commons:Stamps/Public domain. Sebjarod 20:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fish on stamps to be deleted

OK folks, time to spring into action - List of fish on stamps is proposed for deletion. Go weigh in if you think this material is at least as worth keeping as individual articles for each Pokemon. Stan 03:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Holiday stamps

Looking through the Christmas stamp I noticed a redlinked Holiday stamp. I believe that Christmas is just one festivity in this large world and Wikipedia still had not looked at the other stamps of other cultures. So I started this stub. The information is just for US Postage stamps. I would like to invite all of you to expand this article and although there is still very much more to write about US Holiday stamps, I believe there is much more to say of other countries' stamps. I would interested to see about Muslim countries and Chinese issues, as also if other Western countries with a high inmigration population has issued special multicultural festival stamps. --Francisco Valverde 10:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Express Mail

I noticed there are 3 articles that refer to Express Mail. Two are duplicates Express mail, Express Mail(USPS) and the third Express Mail Service that all refer to the express mail services as offered by postal administrations (UPU members) throughout the world. It seems to me that one of those duplicates should be deleted and used as a redirect while only one main article should cover the subject in depth with references to the express services offered by other, non-postal administration, carriers like Fedex, etc.

Proposal:

Express Mail(USPS) should redirect to Express mail
Express Mail Service shold be merged with Express mail
Express mail should be expanded to become the main article.

Opinions sought. ww2censor 14:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Lots of left hands not knowing what right hands are doing, a single article suffices since I doubt the subject can get longer than 3-4 screenfuls even with excruciating detail. Stan 14:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Seeing as this conversation has been dead for two months, is anyone gonna do it? Alphachimp ^talk 19:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to do it this weekend. Cheers ww2censor 13:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So, Express mail is now the main article and it is done though I still need to make some more improvements but the basics are there now. ww2censor 02:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Romanian stamp dies

I'm guessing that someone on this project can do a better job than I can on the description of Commons:Image:Rom stamp dies 1.jpg. - Jmabel | Talk 04:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems good enough to me, any further detail would have to come from one of the world's dozen-odd specialists in Romanian philately, none are WP editors that I know of :-) . The pic will be very handy in an as-yet-nonexistent article on stamp printing, thanks! Stan 19:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Philately Articles Needed

I'm currently going through the compendium to include Main Article links in each micro entry (where appropriate) and it's clear that the majority are going to be missing. If you have any material that could be used to create a stub at least, could you please include it. The naming convention for new articles is on the WikiProject main page: it depends on if the article is philatelic only or a section in the country's general article.

As for what we're missing, this is just A B C & S with loads more to come!

A: Aden Protectorate States; Aegean Islands (Dodecanese); Åland Islands; Albania; Alderney; Algeria; Alsace-Lorraine; Andorra; Angola; Anguilla; Antigua & Barbuda; Argentina; Argentine Territories; Armenia; Aruba; Austro-Hungarian Military Post; Azerbaijan.
B: BA/BMA Issues; Baden; Bahawalpur; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Barbados; Basutoland; Bavaria; Belarus; Belgian Congo; Belgian Occupation Issues; Belgium; Belize; Benin; Bermuda; Bhutan; Bohemia & Moravia; Bolivia; Bosnia & Herzegovina; Bosnian Serb Republic; Botswana; Brazil; Bremen; British Honduras; British Indian Ocean Territory; British Occupation Issues; British Postal Agencies in Eastern Arabia; British Post Offices Abroad; British Post Offices in the Turkish Empire; British South Africa Company; British Virgin Islands; Brunei; Bulgaria; Bulgarian Territories; Burkina Faso; Burma; Burundi.
C: Cambodia; Cameroun; Canadian States; Canal Zone; Canary Islands; Cape of Good Hope; Cape Verde Islands; Cayman Islands; Central African Republic; Ceylon; Channel Islands; Chile; China (Indo-Chinese Post Offices); Chinese Nationalist Republic (Taiwan); Chinese People's Republic; Chinese Provinces; Christmas Island; Cocos (Keeling) Islands; Colombia; Colombian Territories; Comoro Islands; Congo Free State; Congo Republic; Cook Islands; Costa Rica; CPR Regional Issues; Crete; Crete (Austro-Hungarian Post Offices); Crete (French Post Offices); Croatia; Cuba; Cuba & Puerto Rico; Curacao; Cyprus; Cyrenaica; Czechoslovakia; Czech Republic.
S: Sabah; St Christopher Nevis & Anguilla; St Helena; St Kitts; St Kitts Nevis & Anguilla; St Lucia; St Pierre et Miquelon; St Vincent; Samoa; Samos; San Marino; Sao Tome e Principe; Sarawak; Saudi Arabia; Selangor; Senegal; Serbia; Serbian Occupation Issues; Serbia & Montenegro; Seychelles; Shanghai; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Slovakia; Slovenia; Solomon Islands; Somalia; Somaliland Protectorate; South Africa; South African Territories; South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands; South Korea; South Vietnam; South West Africa; Spain; Spanish Guinea; Spanish Morocco; Spanish Philippines; Spanish Post Offices Abroad; Spanish West Africa; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Sungei Ujong; Suriname; Swaziland; Swiss Cantonal Issues; Syria; Szeged.

To see the compendium project's progress, go to Category:Compendium of postage stamp issuers

To see the articles we already have, go to Category:Philately by country

All the best to everyone who is contributing to this project. --Jack 20:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If we add all the stamp issuing countries that have yet to be listed, I am sure it will be several hundred, so I am gald to see they have not been red linked. That is not to say that we should not make a list but I would recommend concentrating on existing links even if they need to be started. Without adding any more to the list of missing articles there are plenty (more than 250) of red linked philatelic pages already, especially at List of philatelic topics, List of philatelists, List of philatelic libraries and List of philatelic museums to name a few. I have been looking at filling an occasional one as information comes to hand, though my philatelic library is in storage right now. My own interest would be in the List of philatelic topics. ww2censor 14:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've only just joined this project and I spotted this on my inaugural tour! Wow! You don't do things by halves, do you? I see the word "British" appears frequently in your list and I collect British stamps including the old colonies, so I might be able to help in due course. Leave it with me. --AlbertMW 15:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm aware of redlinks in the list articles and I agree these need to be addressed but I have started the missing countries so I'll finish that first and then move on to the redlinks, though I suspect a lot of these like the libraries and many of the philatelists are not going to be addressed for some considerable time. I would say the countries have priority but I would like to get most of the "topics list" underway. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Stubs renaming discussion - please see

There is a proposal to rename two postal and philatelic stub categories. Please join discussion at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7Btl.7CPostal-stub.7D.7D_.2F_.5B.5B:Category:Postal_stubs.5D.5D_and_.7B.7Bcl.7CPhilately_stubs.7D.7D

It's under 31 May, by the way.

I've voted for merge and rename but I'll go with consensus as long as nothing gets deleted. --Jack 20:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Philately and postal stub templates

We have a standard philately stub template {{philately-stub}} in wide use for philatelic subjects and there is a suitable alternative {{postal-stub}} for articles that are more relevant to postal systems than philately. One of these should be used whenever a stub is created.

I have just nominated two additional stub templates for deletion as they are superfluous, they are not in use and they have in any case an inappropriate icon. --Jack 05:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Category Deletion Proposed: UPU

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Universal_Postal_Union Universal Postal Union for the discussion. --Jack 14:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has amazingly become very heated and I would appreciate more views from the project members as we could effectively be prevented from improving our own project by the denizens of the deletion discussion pages. AlbertMW has already spoken up and I'd like to thank him for making a very valid point. --Jack 13:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. UPU stays and is now a sub-category of the root itself. Lets all try and make use of it as appropriate. It now has four or five articles and it seems a few more may be forthcoming. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Names

The convention we have adopted for naming our category:Philately by country surveys is "Postaqe stamps and postal history of X" where X is any stamp-issuing entity, not just a modern country. This has just been challenged by someone who redirected Postage stamps and postal history of Santander to a shorter title, leaving out "Postage stamps and". The rationale for his action was that the title was "far too long".

In fact, it is not far too long because the maximum length of a title is 255 bytes, which is very long indeed. See page name length for the rules. If you come across a similar case, you can quote this plus the fact that we have been using our format for about three or more years now and it has never been challenged before so it must be a standard convention.

The editor in this case accepted he was wrong, should have checked the category first and apologised; I reverted the article and wished him well and there seems no harm done. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would love to have a shorter title, but unless one (such as Ireland) is split into separate stamp and postal history articles, not much choice. Alternative might be "Philately of X" for instance, but the term doesn't as clearly include postal history and may even suggest that it's about X's dealers and collectors. Stan 12:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Also the guy's suggested "Postal history of X" suggests an emphasis on postmasters and delivery services, but not on stamps, so I think our standard is fine. We may have a problem where the entity has a very long name as we could have, for example, "Postage stamps and postal history of the Mahra Sultanate of Qishn and Socotra"! Has anyone any suggestions re how to title an article like that? The thing about such huge titles is that they tend to apply to very small entities so I suppose we would include a postage section in an article about the entity, as we already do in some cases. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Found Article

I found List of people on stamps of Turkmenistan, and would like to bring it to your attention, as I've no idea whether it's best to delete the article, merge it, or something else Bluap 14:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stamps of Turkmenistan has been cited by the UPU as illegal though I have not been able to see whether these particular ones are legal or not. If they are illegal then I don't think they should be listed at all. Maybe someone can check but the online lists I found are not very up-to-date. ww2censor 14:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

They do write letters in Turkmenistan, and a little Googling turns up some genuine-seeming on-cover usage. A rather poor list though, that doesn't mention the president, Saparmurad Niyazov, depicted in the very first set. A speedy delete seems appropriate, not losing much. Stan 17:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a delete of the article which contains nothing of interest. Turkmenistan started its issues in 1992 after it split from the USSR but it doesn't seem to have distinguished itself since then. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I've proposed it for deletion. Unless anyone objects, it will be deleted in 5 days or so. Bluap 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

List of postal issuing entities

I've been doing a lot of work on this list in combination with my compendium-based task of identifying the country surveys we need in the form of macro articles. As a result, the list has been extensively updated and revised: indeed, because of its size it now has three pages.

Please see a discussion I have started at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_entities_that_have_issued_postage_stamps_%28A_-_E%29#Format_Revised . All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I've done a survey of the philately categories and found:

There are 17 subcategories in "Philately"

A: Airmail - 0 subcats; 9 pages (all in order); Philatelic associations and societies - 0 subcats; 10 pages (all in order)

C: Compendium of postage stamp issuers - 0 subcats; 43 pages (all in order); Philately by country - 1 subcat (Compendium only); 108 pages - mostly okay but for some renaming and a few strays

D: Stamp designers - 0 subcats; 41 pages (all seemingly in order)

H: Postal history - 1 subcat (Compendium only); 31 pages - all okay; many more to come so surely more subcats

L: Lists of people on stamps - 0 subcats; 110 pages - all okay; Philatelic literature - 1 subcats (okay); 11 pages (all seemingly okay)

M: Postal markings - 0 subcats; 30 pages - all okay; probably several more to come

P: Philatelists - 6 subcats (all in order); 1 page (list only); Postal stationery - 1 subcat (okay); 4 pages (all okay); Postal system - 9 subcats (all in order); 101 pages - needs full review and surely more subcats

S: Stamp collecting - 0 subcats; 19 pages (all okay; probably many more to come so sub-cats will be needed); Postage stamps - 5 subcats (all in order); 127 pages - needs full review and surely more subcats

T: Philatelic terminology - 0 subcats; 44 pages (all okay; as many as needed)

U: Universal Postal Union - 0 subcats; 7 pages (all okay; probably several more to come)

µ: Post and philately stubs - 98 stubs (many more to come)

The verdict is that we have a very healthy and well-structured project. I think the only things to be done in due course are to create more sub-cats for the two very large folders re stamps and systems. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you bring it up, I think you've made somewhat of a mess of categorization actually. In particular, "postage stamps" was for specific stamps and stamp issues (although I guess I didn't write that down, thinking it was obvious), not general concepts such as stamp color. General concepts should stay at the main category, so that the reader doesn't have to hunt up and down dozens of micro-categories trying to guess where something is to be found. One of the hints that you're trying to divide too finely is that articles end up in multiple sibling categories, because they don't fit neatly in either one. So we don't go uselessly round and round on categorization, why don't you try adding a precise definition of each category to its page, and then we can discuss whether members fit that definition. Stan 12:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Stan's comments sound good to me as I too see that finding some articles involves digging too far down and sometimes flailing around because the article is buried too deep. I also find some inconsistencies in the categorisations. One instance: why is the Category:Stamp designers not divided by country yet the Category:Philatelists is divided by country? The designers have 41 pages listed without subcategories (I think that is good and clear) yet the philatelists, that are only 23 pages, are divided into 6 country subcategories. To my way of thinking the country divisions might only be needed when the number of pages in a category gets too large to handle and IMHO 23 pages do not need 6 subcategories. Besides which, if I am trying to find a philatelist, I may not know where they came from, but I will likely know their name, so removal of country subcategories in Category:Philatelists would get my vote for simplicity. Maybe there are other examples where we are having to dig too far to find what we want. I hope you see my thinking here. ww2censor 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

More I just discovered that the subCategory: American philatelists was discussed recently [1] for deletion but it was kept. However it seems that discussion took place with little contribution from Philately project members other than Jack who withdrew the nomination and sorted by six new very small sub-categories. What is the use of six new very small sub-categories? I don't get it. Unfortunately there is a Wikipedia problem that some decisions are made by people who have little knowledge of a subject and then we (those interested) are stuck with that decision. However, we unfortunately cannot watch everything that affects our own interests either. ww2censor 16:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Response I understand from a colleague on the cricket project that Wikipedia introduced categories fairly recently and it is evident that a lot of projects that were well developed before this innovation have failed to make good use of it. The philately root category about a month ago had 184 articles and only a handful of child categories. The lack of structure inherent in such a situation is poor; it does not help the readers at all; and it goes against site guidelines around effective use of categories. I would remind you that the process is incomplete: I have said above that two in particular of the level 1 categories "need full review".

If a reader is confronted by a "wall" of terminology, much of which is strange to him, he is hard put to find out which articles relate to the subject he is trying to research. A category system helps him in this because then he will see at once that a cachet is not just some obscure philatelic term, it is in fact a type of postal marking, which is much more useful to him.

On the other hand, if he is trying to find cut square and isn't sure which category to use, then he has the search facility. He doesn't have to "hunt up and down dozens of (i.e., seventeen) micro-categories" at all.

The combination of categories and search is ideal for the researcher. In any case a structured top-down system of categories is a must. The idea of dumping everything under "philately" is archaic and of no use whatsoever.

I do intend to do a lot more work on the postage stamp and postal system categories and perhaps that isn't really made clear above. I acknowledge that a lot of items in those at present are temporary and were moved there to free up the root. I have already thought that another level 1 category will be introduced to hold all the technical items currently under "postage stamps"; and a similar solution will surely apply re "postal system".

I would ask for a little patience and wait for the end result, bearing in mind it takes time and I do have other things to do.

Re the "philatelists" category, I admit that backfired on me because the CFD mob became involved and I could not be bothered to argue. If you think the philately project has problems with those people, you should join the cricket project and see what we have had to put up with. However I agree with you that there should be a single category for philatelists. I suggest we raise it as a project discussion and then go back armed with a project consensus.

As for the rest of the work on the large sub-categories, I will get on with it as soon as I can, which means probably in a week or so. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not discuss all your categorization ideas first, rather than unilaterally moving everything around and generally acting as if the rest of us don't know what we're doing? As the author of most of WP's philatelic verbiage, I like to imagine I have some clue about how the material should be presented! 184 articles in a root category seems perfectly reasonable to me, but I would have been happy to entertain the idea that some subset forms a logical group to be broken out. Instead, you've taken the approach that the base category should be as empty as possible, but I have yet to see why should be a goal in the first place. Stan 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Stan on this one. Let's discuss the proposed division into categories before actually doing it. With more than 25 years of active philatelic collecting and research I can certainly contribute in a constructive yet useful way with advise on what might be categorised together logically. Bring on the ideas first please. ww2censor 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Navigation. Structure enables navigation. I'm new to the project (15 July I joined) but I've been diligently reading everything and I hope to make some contributions, especially about Great Britain stamps (i.e., not UK stamps, one article that is very wrong). I would not presume to call myself a philatelist but I am that all-important "entity" known as the reader who seems to be forgotten so often. When I started reading this project, the structure was lacking and I was very pleased when I observed that someone was attending to it. The job still isn't finished but what is now (quote) "a bit of a mess" was previously a horrendous mess.

I think Mr Shebs should realise that he is not the project owner, though reading this page he obviously thinks he is. I may not be an expert in philately but I do know a thing or two about publishing and presentation. Structure is all important to assist navigation and the researcher or casual reader both need that structure. For example, suppose I am looking for watermark and then for other types of marking. I pore through a great big list and find watermark but I haven't a hope of identifying other relevant material when I don't know what I am looking for. What I need is category:Postal markings and the same applies to categories re airmail, literary connections, associations, designers, you name it. The more sub-categories feeding off the source category (I think "root category" is a computing term but it sums it up) the better. As for articles in the source category, they should be few in number and strictly relevant to the source. This what we have now and it is far, far better than it ever was before when, presumably Mr Shebs was busy categorising everything as "philately" and not even thinking about poor old me and other readers like me.

I fully support the structural changes brought about by Black Jack but I do have thing to say to him. Read what ww2censor has to say. First of all, he is very constructive, unlike Mr Shebs who is simply being petulant, but Ww2censor makes the very clear point that major changes like this should be put on the table first to let other interested parties have their say. I would encourage him to do that in future. Having said that, it is difficult when something has been neglected for so long not to just go ahead and do it and it does seem to me that Wikipedia encourages people to just go ahead and do it. Learning point for this project, I think. --AlbertMW 06:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Learning Points I entirely agree that there are learning points in this as in all things. Okay, in future, whenever I have an idea about categories it will appear here first and I will not do anything with the idea for a week thereafter. This doesn't apply to articles which are fair game for editing. However, I want to make two points:

1. Quite often, an idea or an intention forms in the doing. If I stop what I am doing to place the details on here and then wait for a week, the momentum is lost and I will move onto other things; so even if consensus is achieved, the change never takes place. I've seen this several times on the cricket project which is so big that we really do need to discuss things.

2. In the cricket project, you know that someone else will be interested and will respond. There have been long periods in this project when I have felt like asking: "Is there anybody there?" On the compendium, which has just been finished in terms of the available macro articles, the only answer has been from visiting wikibots tidying up my linkages and from a few people interested in following up references to a particular entity who are not interested in the postage. Even on the project page itself, which I have completely rewritten over several months, there has been very little sign of other life.

I would like to thank ww2censor for his constructive points which I will certainly take on board. I would like to thank AlbertMW for his support and for making the very pertinent observation about navigation, something I ought to have remembered in connection with a structured approach. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent response And you are quite right that at times you will be the only one answering so, if and when that happens, wait till your deadline and then write on here that you are going ahead. I always did that whenever something had to be reviewed and people didn't turn up or offer feedback. --AlbertMW 06:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As a step forward I have created a user page where I have listed all of the links, both red and blue from the List of philatelic topics page in a table format for easy viewing and editing. If you agree that this is a good idea, I suggest filling in the categories you suggest per topic in your column and see what we come up with by way of consensus. New categories could also be suggested. I would like to add a list of all the philately categories at the top of the page and as Jack has been working most recently with them perhaps you wold add them. Is this a good way of progressing. If 2 or 3 users fill in their suggestions then we might find a constructive, but logical philatelic way forward. Cheers ww2censor 15:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Postage Stamps

I've created a new level 1 category:Postage stamp design to deal with the more technical side of postage stamps while Category:Postage stamps may deal with the historic and presentation aspects as intended. There may be a few items still in the category that should also be shifted. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it my previous comments made no impression whatsoever - now you have a category whose subject is contradicted by the article of the exact same name. Stamp design is strictly the patterns on the front, is completely separate from perforation, gumming, and all that. All you're doing here is forcing me to do extra work later to undo all this mess, thanks a lot. Stan 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully support Stan and as suggested previously think you should run these ideas by the project before just do things like that even though Wikipedia tells us to be bold in our editing. Postage stamp design deals only with the design of postage stamps and all those other things you have added to the category do not belong in such a category. Really, let's talk these things through first and decide on what is best first, rather than do something and then redo it, or undo it. That creates more work for people and pisses all of us off, including you. Cheers ww2censor 23:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I wrote my bit under categories above before I even read this, not realising it was directly connected. This completely bears out what I had already gleaned from the above.

Mr Shebs, may I ask exactly who or what you think you are? If I join this project and alter your "UK stamps" article, for example, am I to be subjected to this sort of petulant tirade which I strongly suspect is based on jealousy and actually suggests a territorial mindset?

This design category is okay in itself and, as something of a designer-cum-publisher myself, I would think that a lot of material could potentially be included in it. As for things like gums and adhesives and roulettes and whatnot, you are at liberty to create a "postage stamp manufacture" category for those if you really care about it so much. Do it. Black Jack sees something that needs doing so he evidently gets on with it. Do likewise.

Having said that, I support the view of ww2censor that Black Jack really should put his category ideas on the table first. For example, a design category interests me professionally. I agree with it, but I think I might also be able to comment. --AlbertMW 06:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"who or what you think you are?" Well, let's see, I've done somewhere above 25,000 edits to WP; I've invested thousands of hours and some of my own money, including for instance buying stamps and covers that will be good subjects for scanning. I've set up the original structure of several different parts of the encyclopedia, I've dealt with vandals and a couple major nutjobs. I've spent a lot of time reading talk pages and studying other areas of WP to see what works and what doesn't, and have done some outside reading on encyclopedias in general. Also outside WP, I have a sophisticated custom stamp database that has records for over 147,000 types so far, to help index my worldwide collection of 74,000+ different stamps.

Am I a little possessive of the philatelic area? It's a fair cop, there was a long period where I was the only regular contributor. Some things I thought out carefully, others were expedient decisions in lieu of input from others, and I didn't always document which was which, because there was nobody to care. I do think it's a gross misrepresentation to characterize my work as a "horrendous mess" or to say that I was "not even thinking" about readers. But hey, if my work here is really that bad, I guess I don't need to be here anymore. All yours now, have fun! Stan 12:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hold on you guys, all we are doing here is having a discussion about a possible newer direction to take. We can all see that Stan has contributed a lot before we came on the scene and I am sure he worked in a way he though best at the time. We would be at a great loss to lose him over such a small thing. Besides which, how many active philatelists are there here? Likely only a handful with real knowledge and some hangers-on who have an interest in the subject. So let's have some civility and no mud-slinging or other accusations. Moving on constructively is where we need to go from here. Unfortunately I get the impression that AlbertMW would prefer more categories rather than less. Remember KISS, more is less. For the maybe 10 or so articles you could possibly put in a new category postage stamp manufacture I think we would all be better served to have those topics in the basic category of "Postage stamps". More postage stamp categories means more digging to find what you are looking for. If I am looking for, perforation, gumming, watermark, etc., I expect to find it under Category:Postage stamps not buried in some subcategory. Let's keep it courteous and constructive. ww2censor 14:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

More suggestions concerning the categories will be added in the above categories discussion later. ww2censor 14:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to encourage AlbertMW to get on with his article about Great Britain stamps and to split the existing UK stamps article into GB and Regionals as separate articles. I'm prepared to move the technical articles re stamps back into Category:Postage stamps if that is preferred. In that case, may I suggest that the many articles about specific stamps and issues should be split within that category by country, especially the British and American ones? I'll open a new discussion about that below or it'll be lost in this one.

Finally, as I said above, from now on any ideas I have about categories will appear on this page first. For the time being, I am going to work on country articles. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe he has gone for good and I hope that when he rejoins the project he will accept that other people have a right to edit his work. As far as the issue about categories is concerned, Balck Jack has resolved it re his future ideas: he says he will give us a week to speak up and then he goets on with it. That's fair enough. If Mr Shebs must learn to put forward constructive criticisms and not make personal attacks, which is what his outburst amounted to.

Moving forward, I intend to address the UK stamps article. We need articles re GB, GB Regionals, Alderney, Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. I'm also interested in the use of British stamps abroad as by the MEF and in Eastern Arabia, etc. so I can contribute that way too. And I will do some scans too. Leave it with me. --AlbertMW 06:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.