Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 12 April 2023

Philately NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting on Misplaced Pages. 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 NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Philately was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 August 2013.

Archives

November 2003—July 2006 July 2006 August 2006 August 2006—December 2007 January 2008—July 2008 August 2008—April 2010 April 2010—November 2010 November 2010—January 2013 January 2013—April 2016 April 2016—

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Articles needing images

Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of philately is the new holding place for philatelic missing image articles. Such missing images are tagged in a field of our project assessment banner. I've uploaded around a dozen mainly non-free logos, but there are 100+ mainly for people, so any help will be appreciate. Remember that, before uploading, one should wait at least six months after their death and must make reasonable efforts to find freely licenced images before simply uploading a non-free one to this wiki. Don't forget to change the image-needed box in our banner on the talk page to no. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor (talk • contribs) 15:49, 7 October 2018

Scope of "Great Britain commemorative stamps..." articles

Do the articles in the "Great Britain commemorative stamps..." family of articles (e.g. Great Britain commemorative stamps 2020–2029) not include stamps issued for use in Northern Ireland? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

As a part of the United Kingdom, there are no postage stamps valid only for use in Northern Ireland. Stamps have been issued with Northern Ireland scenes or emblems but those are either commemorative stamps valid throughout the UK, as an English-themed stamp would be valid in N.I., or regional postage stamps of Great Britain which are a form of definitive stamp intended primarily for use in N.I. but still valid in the whole of the U.K. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy, thanks for your reply. It seems then that NI has the same status, as far as stamps are concerned, as England, Scotland, and Wales. I was wondering why the articles were titled "Great Britain commemorative stamps...", which excludes Northern Ireland (it only covers England, Scotland, and Wales), rather than "United Kingdom commemorative stamps..." which is fully inclusive of all four UK nations. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree on both points. All UK stamps are valid throughout the whole of the UK, regardless of what they may show. Incidentally, there are plenty of NI scenes on UK stamps as Royal Mail are careful to be inclusive of all the nations of the UK, particularly in more recent years. I can think of the Giant's Causeway on a 1981 commemorative, and these too. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess they all need moving to the more inclusive name then. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably. I created the category Philately of the United Kingdom a decade ago which has many "British" and "Great Britain" articles but they are not all wrong, for instance, I wouldn't move British post offices in Morocco just for the sake of consistency. There are others too that may be better left. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was only thinking of the six "Great Britain commemorative stamps..." articles (...1970–1979, ...1980–1989, ...1990–1999, ...2000-2009, ...2010–2019, and ...2020–2029), where the problem is quite apparent. They should be renamed as "United Kingdom commemorative stamps...". -- DeFacto (talk). 09:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would oppose you as it is self-evidently correct. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved them. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

And "Postage stamps and postal history of Great Britain" to "Postage stamps and postal history of the United Kingdom" (over the redirect). -- DeFacto (talk). 09:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The use of "Great Britain" as an abbreviation for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is common in philatelic circles. I've just checked major English-speaking catalogues - Stanley Gibbons (2016), Scott (1989) and an old Stanley Gibbons (1905, before Irish independence) - and they all use "Great Britain" for the UK. Daveosaurus (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Very consistently and over a long period of time "Great Britain" has been used in philately as the blanket term their stamps and/or any philatelic references to it. In addition to the stamp catalogues above, most philatelic publications use the term "Great Britain" or "British" and changing any article title here will not alter that fact, so I'm in favour of the status quo and continue using what as been used for over 100 years. The recent moves, which were rather preemptive without decent discussion, should be reverted because I don't see any sources being offered that would show the notability of using the UK term instead. ww2censor (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The entity we are referring to is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because the northern Irish are not British, they are Irish, albeit within the UK. If we move back will it be stamps of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? I think UK will make a lot more sense to non-philatelist visitors, who probably make up the majority of readers of those pages. Stamp catalogues can continue to use whatever name they choose. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The geopolitics

"Great Britain" is an island upon which a major part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) sits. Another major part of the UK sits on the island of Ireland. The UK is a sovereign country, Great Britain is not.

All citizens of the UK, no matter which of its islands they come from, are British citizens, and hence entitled to call themselves "British". UK citizens from the part of the UK on the island of Ireland are also entitled to be Irish citizens if they so wish.

None of Northern Ireland, one of the four constituent countries of the UK, is in Great Britain, although each of the other three constituent countries, England, Scotland, and Wales, is.

Here's an interesting diagram that illustrates the geography and politics of the British Isles. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the key point here is that Great Britain is not a stamp-issuing entity, the United Kingdom is. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The stamp-issuing entity is "International Distributions Services plc trading as Royal Mail" (at least, that's what they call themselves this week). For historic reasons stamps issued by the Royal Mail do not have any country of origin identifier so we can't base the articles on what the stamps call themselves. So we have reliable sources using "Great Britain", and original research using "United Kingdom". The question to ponder is: is this a rare case where Misplaced Pages:NOR does not apply? Daveosaurus (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Daveosaurus, I don't see a shortage of reliable sources using "United Kingdom" or "British" (belonging to or relating to the United Kingdom, not just the portion of it in Great Britain) when referring to stamps from the UK, particularly more recently published sources. I see no compelling reason to use the less inclusive (literally incorrect) term when referring to things coming from the UK as a whole. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Updates to 2020 Postal Voting in U.S. Article

Hello! I'm a U.S. Postal Service employee seeking to update the Postal voting in the 2020 United States elections article. This WikiProject is listed on that article's Talk page, so I thought this might be a good place to ask for help.

I recently proposed a redraft of the article's Postal service crisis section, which appears not to have been edited much since 2020, when it was describing ongoing events. I rewrote a handful of sentences so that they're now in past tense, cleaned up a few citation templates, and added some information on how the Postal Service eventually performed in the 2020 election. You can read my full edit request on the Postal Voting in 2020 Talk page, and the section draft is accessible on my user page.

As a USPS employee, I can't make direct edits to agency-related pages. I have to suggest changes and then let independent editors decide whether they pass muster or not. If someone from this WP could review my section draft, I would really appreciate it. I'm open to any feedback you might have. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This editor has a conflict of interest so I have posted the suggestion on their talk page to use the WP:TPW instead of editing directly. This is a common suggestion for COI editors. ww2censor (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox for philatelists?

See this conversation about the inadequacy of using {{Infobox engineer}} for philatelists. Is using {{Infobox engineer}} the best practice so far? Has any thought been given to creating an infobox specifically for philatelists? Inviting @TimeTreks to this conversation. — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I have translated the use of {{infobox engineer}} at John Walter Scott to use {{Infobox person}}. I was able to find corresponding parameters in {{Infobox person}} for use in that particular article but I do not know if that template is sufficient to recommend for use more broadly with other philatelists (i.e., are there are some philately-specific parameters that are not supported). Maybe there is no need for a separate infobox for philatelists. — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Archer1234 well spotted. A few years ago the editor User:Wikited added several philatelists using the improper infobox {{Infobox engineer}} and when I happen upon one I usually refine the details into the correct {{Infobox person}} as I did with this one. I did point this out to the editor and asked them to correct their error but they never did anything about it. I suppose going through their contribution history would be the only way to find those still existing but that seems like a long task. I don't know if a way to search for a users edits plus that specific template. If you were to review all article using that template it come to just under 990 which might be better than searching their own contributions. It might even be easier to search through these philatelist categories. Your John Walter Scott infobox now looks much better, so thanks for your work in this regard. ww2censor (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any point in reinventing the wheel. Making a philatelist specific infobox template when the {{Infobox person}} works quite well seems too much work and can be used for other stamp related people that a specific philatelist template would not be suitable for. ww2censor (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Archer1234: I've added a few of these article with improper infoboxes to this category Category:Philately articles needing attention as I get time to go through the offending editors contributions. ww2censor (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Misplaced Pages editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• NA-Class Philately pages
• NA-importance Philately pages
• All WikiProject Philately pages