Misplaced Pages

Indian stamps under copyright?

Are Indian stamps under copyright? Can they be shown under a fair use argument? AshLin (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are. What are you trying to do with the stamp images? You cannot use Indian stamps under fair use criteria in articles about the subject or topic of the stamp if they are less than 60 years old. Use in articles about the actual stamp are usually allowed. Only Indian stamps more than 60 years old are in the public domain according to commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain#India. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your reply clarifies the issue. I had wanted to use stamps for the subject of the stamp itself but it is amply clear that this type of use is not permitted by Indian law. Thanks for the links and prompt response. AshLin (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha, a new issue. PD- vs Postal Deptt guidelines. Please see my query at Wikimedia Commons licensing here. AshLin (talk)

Document stamp

Hi, folks!

A brief question - what would the official name be for the revenue stamps that are placed on documents in order to legalize them - eg. documents compliant with stamp duty in the UK; marriage certificates; official translations of legal documents, etc? A suggestion has been made that "documentary stamp" is used in the US, but is this also the case for the entire english-speaking world? please place your answers here, as this question has been asked in several wikiproject pages. Thank you! (the discussion that led to this question can be seen just above the link provided.) BigSteve (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Misplaced Pages:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Misplaced Pages talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:32, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Where is the page (AAlerts)

Copied from User talk:Headbomb.

Yesterday several notices were dropped on some WikiProject talk pages. I was able to find the Ireland WikiProject alerts at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland/Article alerts but, despite the post, the Philately WikiProject alerts page is nowhere to be found. It is not at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Philately/Article alerts where I expected to find it. Was it not created, do we need to create an empty page first, of did the bot just fail? Please reply at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philately. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's where the page should be located, but you don't seem to have subscribed Wikiproject Philately to the alerts. I can't find the template on your mainpage. Simply place {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription}} somewhere on the main page and the alerts will be generated at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Philately/Article alerts in the next few days. The alerts will also show up on the project main page where you placed the template (you can chose to not display them if you want, but remember to give the link if you don't display them). For details see WP:AAlerts#Subscribing.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Guidance needed for "importance" ratings

The "importance" ratings for Philately articles are in need of reworking. Although they are overall not too bad, there are some inconsistencies in the ratings. Some guidance in a few areas would be helpful so that the ratings are less subjective, particularly for the country articles and the "top" importance level.

Country articles. Country articles are inconsistently rated as to importance (when they are rated at all). None is in the "top" importance category. Should any be? Only two, United Kingdom and Greece, are rated "high." Seven are rated "mid" importance, including Germany, Turkey, and India. Why is Germany "mid" and Greece "high"? Surely, Greece and Turkey, with comparable philatelic history, should have the same rating. What should be the rating for the United States? Also included in the "mid" importance level are some obscure stamp issuing locales of little philatelic significance, such as Ross Dependency and Falkland Islands. There are about 35 "low" importance country articles, including countries which have rich philatelic traditions and are heavily collected, such as Russia and Israel, as well as several issuers of major historical importance to classic philately, such as Tuscany.

• My suggestion would be that importance be assigned by taking into consideration a number of factors, including (1) how "important" is the country in the world today, aside from philately? (2) how popular the country is among philatelists? (3) the country's significance in the history of philately (e.g., the German States). Assuming that no country articles will be rated "top", the articles for the major stamp issuing countries of the world and those heavily collected, e.g., United Kingdom, France, Russia/USSR, United States, Brazil, Israel, should all be rated "high." The obscure locales, such as Ross Dependency and (unfortunately) Tannu Tuva, should be rated "low" while the rest would be "mid". Mid would include places like Bolivia, Yugoslavia, and Sri Lanka. The German States and Italian States should merit "mid" or possibly even "high."

"Top" importance articles. There are few articles rated "top" importance. They seem to include the most basic topics in philately, such as Philately itself, Postage stamp, Postal history, Definitive stamp or Postmark. They include one specific stamp, Penny Black, and one person, Rowland Hill (postal reformer). Comparable basic topics, however, are spread throughout other ratings, such as Airmail, Stamp catalog, and Post office (all "high"), Cancellation ("mid"), and Zip code ("low").

• There should be some guidance on what constitutes a "top" importance article. Just basic philatelic terms? The Penny Black, but not the British Guiana 1c magenta? Should any country articles rate "top" importance? If so, which? I raise these questions, because I really don't have much of an answer at this time. Ecphora (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should adapt the Numismatics Project guidelines, which focus on how significant the article may be for average readers. That I believe will result in considerably more "top" ratings. Ecphora (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been following your posts. I fully agree that we need guidelines. In the numismatic assessment page, the assessment guidelines only deal generically. They only provide you a starting point. We should decide this in greater depth and debate over each issue if necessary. Why dont you whip up a userpage with draft guidelines? Let's develop it from there! AshLin (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See the imbalance between articles at Top, High, Mid and Low importance pages for pointers on the issues to address while making draft guidelines. AshLin (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

When I setup the assessments within the project no one else was particularly interested so I started on my own. My experience was based on being an active member of the Ireland WikiProject assessment team who have assessed 20,000+ articles mostly manually; this is obviously a much smaller project. More than a year ago we developed two importance rating example tables for which we have been complemented as being one of the best. We should probably develop something similar here for each different category even if that means we need more than one table to cover most different topic categories. Currently, in this project, we are just using the Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic criteria but they don't specifically address philately as they are very general in nature.

The reason for the disparity in some current ratings is, firstly, that all assessments ARE subjective, so there will always be some variance though more consistency would be better, secondly, because some assessments are made by non-philatelic editors who may not know or understand the topic, and thirdly, because we are using the generic rating criteria. Concerning the two high ratings, I rated Great Britain as high-importance, over a year ago but the Greece article was assessed by one of that article's main editors who makes many Greek edits so he may have done so with a pro-Greek bias. There should probably be some agreement on certain levels of assessment. For instance, all Top-importance ratings should be agreed on by the philatelic editors and all High-importance ratings should at least be reviewed when rated by more than one project member, or can to nominated for rating, while the lower ratings can be done by individuals based on our agreed importance rating criteria that we will develop.

I am not sure I agree with the Numismatics Project guidelines criteria as being quite right for this project because they are based more on the importance to the reader and not on an article's importance within philately as a whole. I have created a new page to develop our criteria so please add it to your watchlist - the shortcut is WP:PHIL/A/I. Don't forget that after each assessment bot update you may want to view the updated quality log to check any new assessments. ww2censor (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right; This discussion indicates that "importance" should be judged within the project, not from a universal viewpoint. If one used the latter, I suppose one might conclude that all philately articles have little importance. I'll continue this on the new criteria talk page. Ecphora (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to the WP:PHIL/A/I talk page. ww2censor (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Question on uploading images

I've just joined here, and am kind of confused about the process of uploading images. If I wish to upload images of stamps and postal history from my own collection, where would those fall in the licensing/fair use rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amvros (talk • contribs) 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are best off to only add stamps that are in the public domain and these should be uploaded to where you will find many images already under different categories and might review commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain and commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. Fair-use images may only be uploaded here under strict criteria and they must have an acceptable fair use rationale. You might want to familiarise yourself with the following: WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFC#Images, and this FAQ before uploading any non-free stamps. Remember the burden of proof to provide a suitable rationale is on the editors who wishes to place an image in an article otherwsie it may be deleted. BTW please sign all your posts by typing ~~~~. If you have any problems or questions please ask here or on our talk pages. ww2censor (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes it a lot clearer. Amvros (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Amvros

Recategorisation

Maidonian has been removing proper categories for numerous philatelic articles and redefining them into Category:Philatelic terminology. He is also adding this category as an additional category where is it unnecessary and unwarranted overcategorisation. Oftentimes one succinct category is quite sufficient and using related and sub-categories is not needed. This is such a radical change in categorisation that I think it would have been better to discuss with the community before making so many changes many of which I think need to be reverted.

This category was originally intended for articles that used specialised philatelic terms not as a general depository for other general philatelic articles like specific types of stamps, postal history aticles, etc., that are well categorised under Category:Postage stamps and other categories. In fact back in 2008 (see the talk page} there was another category of terms called "Technical aspects of philately" which was merged with this one as they seemed to duplicate the same technical ground. I am pretty sure if "Technical aspects of philately" had been used in preference these changes would not have been made. With due respect to Maidonian edits, I get the impression that his perspective is that nearly everything fits only into Category:Philatelic terminology and I regard this is somewhat disruptive and pretty useless to regular readers because it seems to me that terminology should be used only for specialist philatelic terms or glossary of unfamiliar terms and not for as a place to put article that are, actually already were, easily categorised elsewhere under more easily discoverable categories by regular readers. I don't think this recategorisation adds to the reader's understanding of the topics.

There are probably several questions to be discussed and decisions made as to what should and should not be in some the different philatelic categories. Should "type of stamps", such as War tax stamp or Miniature sheet be categorised as terminology or as postage stamps; I prefer the latter. Back when BlackJack started some of these categories he defined the technical aspects category, which is what now is called Category:Philatelic terminology as being for "all the technical articles around design, paper, gum, perforation, roulette, etc. that the true (i.e., technical) philatelist is interested in". Perhaps it would be better to go back to the ""Technical aspects of philately" name rather than "Philatelic terminology". ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ww2censor, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. If you think that my categorisations are wrong then please revert them but they were a sincere effort to improve the philately pages which I agree suffer from over-categorisation. I don't think that you have taken into account that while phil terms has increased, others have decreased. I submit that there are so many specialist terms in philately that the Philatelic Terminology category is inevitably going to be quite large. I have just had another look and they all seem to be genuine philatelic terms to me. Instead of making generalised assertions, could you please tell me specifically which entries you think are wrong. May I remind you to assume good faith in commenting on other users. Regards. Maidonian (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If I was not assuming good faith Maidonian, I would have reverted you immediately AND not bothered to start this discussion. All I want to do is discuss some terms of reference, or criteria, for some of the philatelic categories, especially Category:Philatelic terminology. While you consider my views are overstated a problem does arise if familiar named articles are removed from easily found categories and put into the Philatelic terminology category when they are not specialist terms and fit more appropriately into other categories. This stems from the fact that I think regular readers will have difficulty in finding what they are interested or looking for. Of course it is obvious, if articles are recategorised, that some categories will increase and some decrease. When you state: "there are so many specialist terms in philately that the Philatelic Terminology category is inevitably going to be quite large", I get the impression that you want to place everything in there that smells even slightly of a technical nature when that is really not necessary. I have already mentioned a few of your recategorisations that I disagree giving some examples above but I am not going to go through all of your category edits and give my comments on them, that would be highly unproductive for both of us. Let's have a constructive discussion on what should or should not be in this category. ww2censor (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It would have been propoer for Maidonian to discuss his proposed change to the category structure beforehand especially as there is a WikiProject associated with it. Since there is now a discussion on the topic, let us decide here what should be the main categories concerned with the WikiProject. AshLin (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely Philatelic Terminology is fairly self-explanatory. We all have at least one book of philatelic terms and they all include roughly the same entries (and the same ones as in the Misplaced Pages category). There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Others have done the work for us and it includes terms such as Watermark, Presentation Pack, Specimen Stamp etc. The name of the category is fine too in my opinion. I accept that it is a large category and I have given the reason for that. I also accept that some terms may be borderline as to whether they should go there or somewhere else. Please put forward nominations for specific terms that are in the wrong category (or just move them). Regarding Category:Postage stamps I suggest that it should be reserved for articles about famous stamps or ranges, eg Admirals, Wildings, The inverted Jenny etc. I note the category includes the rare stamp template. What about a name change to "Notable stamps" or something similar to make this clear? Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not in agreement with many of the category changes that Maidonian is doing. For example, he has changed many articles, such as Philatelic expertisation, to the sole category of Category:Philately. That is the topmost category in the hierarchy which should consist mostly of subcategories and should have very few articles directly in it. Philatelic expertisation would more appropriately belong in Category:Stamp collecting and Category:Philatelists, possibly others. An article can properly belong in more than one category; the purpose of categorization is to help readers find the article and related ones. Ecphora (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend some more discussion here before very extensive changes are made to the existing categories. Ecphora (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Philatelic Expertisation was in philatelic terminology but I moved it because it didn't seem to fit (see above messages). I thought the top catagory was the safest one pending a more accurate allocation. It definitely does not belong in Category:Philatelists which is about individuals. I don't think it fits neatly anywhere. Is there any objection to some articles being at the top level? I will not make any further category changes until a consensus is reached. Maidonian (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Many of Maidonian's changes are perfectly correct. For example Line pair did not belong in Category:Postal markings because Postal marking only concerns "annotation applied to a letter by a postal service". Others were not necessary, in my opinion. For example Ship cover seems to be appropriate in Category:Postal system, but since it is not so technical a word, not in Category:Philatelic terminology. I think the latter should include primarily technical terminology; otherwise, it could include nearly all philatelic articles. Similarly, Postage stamp, one of the most general articles, seems to belong in Category:Philately but is not specialized enough to belong in Category:Philatelic terminology. (Obviously, there are no black and white answer here, and one man's technical term is another's common term.) Cancelled-to-order seems appropriate in Category:Stamp collecting because the article basically addresses cancellations purely made for collectors. Rather than go through more examples, I think one should keep in mind that the purpose of the categories is simply to enable readers to find relevant articles. For that reason, we shouldn't shy from having articles appear in multiple categories. Ecphora (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I never suggested that all Maidonian's recats were all improper or inappropriate but that many were not what I thought were useful to readers and that is the paramount reason for categorising. Ecphora has more succinctly expressed some of what I feel. Indeed, some categorisation can be subjective and we may not always agree entirely but we can always discuss it. It might be a good idea to place some basic criteria for inclusion in the top of each category. That way we have a better understanding of what should fit where. While Maidonian is correct that we probably all have some books with a terminology list, we are not slavishly producing a duplicate philatelic publication, but an encyclopaedia accessable to all, so identical listings may not apply when simplicity and ease of use can be achieved. ww2censor (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My point about the books of philatelic terms was that almost everything that I have put in Phil Terms also appears in the books on the same subject and that is strong prima-facie evidence that the categorisation is correct. I agree with Ecphora that there is no problem with having more than one category per article as long as they speak to different aspects of the subject. That is the case throughout Misplaced Pages isn't it? Over-categorisation may be an evil but it would also be wrong to choose just one category to pigeon-hole an entire subject. In categorisation we need our porridge to be not too hot and not too cold, but just right. The idea of having a definition at the top is an excellent one. Maidonian (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I already raised an issue about not always careful and proper categorisation in the earlier discussion topic, Major category confusion. The current conversation just demonstrates that we might want to seek a better understanding of categorisation in terms of key Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines as is defined and prescribed in Misplaced Pages:Categorization. In this connection, while not belittling an extremely significant Maidonian's contribution to the WikiProject Philately, I would support ww2censor in his efforts to develop the Project in accordance with Misplaced Pages fundamental principles and rules. --Michael Romanov (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am having second thoughts about my suggestion that Category:Philatelic terminology should contain "technical terms" for several reasons. First, I doubt that there can be agreement on what's technical. I merged (after proposal) Category:Technical aspects of philately into Category:Philatelic terminology because "the contents of these appear to be indistinguishable and randomly divided between the categories." Second, it serves a useful purpose to collect Philatelic terminology, "technical" or not, in one place. Portal:Numismatics does not have such a category, but it does have something that serves the same purpose (perhaps better), namely Glossary of numismatics, which is "a collection of concise Numismatic and coin collecting terms for the beginner or professional", each with a short explanation, and links to articles where they exist. I'm not suggesting that there be a Glossary of Philately because frankly, I don't know who could do the work, but we could use Category:Philatelic terminology as a glossary of terms you might find in a dictionary of philately. Ecphora (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, the more I look at it the more I think the category structure is a tangled mess of spaghetti that may be beyond saving. I think a major problem is the overlap between Postal System, Philately and Stamp Collecting. The Philately/Stamp Collecting division is particularly toxic. If we could somehow merge these I think the rest might fall into place. I have gone along with the separate definitions, i.e. one is study and another collecting without any study but I think in reality there is a 90% overlap. After all, in some languages the word for stamp collecting is the same as that for philately. I propose the merger of these two entries into one titled Stamp Collecting and Philately. It is not too long and can encompass all relevant aspects. The catageories can then fall in line. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be for the general public and I don't think they really see any difference. Maidonian (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that the Philatelic category structure is "a tangled mess of spaghetti" -- in general it seems understandable and useful, although there are some areas of inconsistency or confusion (there always will be in these categories.) But even if it is a "mess of spaghetti", I don't think that's necessarily bad. The Misplaced Pages:Categorization page suggests that is what to expect --

After all, Misplaced Pages itself is a "tangled mess of spaghetti". Ecphora (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, now I have viewed the chart it is all clear to me. What about my proposal to merge the Philately and Stamp Collecting articles? Maidonian (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Category:Stamp collecting is a sub-category of Category:Philately (which itself is a sub-category of Category:Collecting) and should properly include topics specifically focusing on collecting, like Stamp album, Stamp hinge, stamp catalogs, etc. Ecphora (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What about renaming Category:Stamp collecting as Category:Stamp collecting tools or something like that? Ecphora (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Gibbons catalogue

There is no separate article in English Wiki for the major English stamp catalogue, and I suggested here to have one. Maidonian has opposed this idea, so it would be interesting to hear opinions of other users in this regard. Thanks. --Michael Romanov (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added my reply on the talk page. I am not necessarily against it, I just doubt the necessity and notability. There is also scope for confusion as we already have Stanley Gibbons the firm and SG the man. Maidonian (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on Misplaced Pages to justify an Outline of philately?

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist    23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)