Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 10

2059:, who knows more than I do about wikitech and wikipolitics. Immediately launching a separate Web site within the Wikimedia complex seems a difficult struggle. The most successful such topic-based, semi-independent operation that I know of is Wikispecies, which serves a very disciplined group of editors. Well, Mediawiki and Meta also seem to be doing all right but they are internal, and besides, I think they are too many. Wikivoyage was started a few years ago by refugees from a schism at the fully independent Wikitravel who brought with them the right to use all the old files of their homeland. I don't think that one has greatly thrived, as many pages have slipped out of date without enough tending. Naturally the wikipolitical question would arise, what happens when collectors of coins, dolls, postcards and seashells arrive? Do they each get their own, or should there be a general collectors' wiki? That will lead to the question, why do you want to be so closely associated to WP anyway? Why not go for almost complete independence, with a Wikia site? A strong presence in Wikidata will be part of your answer. 2395:

of Good Hope (a stamp affixed to a cigarette packet to show that the tax on it has been paid), but due to their different inscriptions where would you include them? In addition, not all "Excise" stamps may have the same function. Some may be for cigarettes, others for alcohol and others for entertainment tax on cinema tickets. There are countless other examples - eg. American Proprietary stamps might have had the same function as British Medicine Duty stamps. Also, in the current list how do you deal with similar but slightly different types, eg. Malta had "Stocks and Shares" stamps, while Basel had stamps for "Stocks and Bonds" - these are currently grouped together as "Stocks, Shares and Bonds", a grouping which neither Malta nor Basel actually used on their stamps.

1455: 1343: 2399:

stamps, but these all have their own section or subsection in the current list. One must remember that the article as it is now has 304 sections excluding references and it only covers a very limited amount of countries (mostly British Commonwealth) - yet the new article has "only" 237 sections but it includes all the presently-existing countries in the world (some colonies and dependent territories plus old names of countries which changed their names are still missing). If every country/dependent territory etc is included in the new list, we might have a total of 400 or so sections (I don't plan on including

1536: 2199:

stamp, so it's easy to tell which sources are mistaken about that. But date of issue? It seems like an objective fact, so it is kind of alarming to find out that the major printed catalogs and major websites have thousands of listings that disagree on the date, even for modern issues from countries with a well-organized stamp program. And then you get to the even more subjective things like colors and designs. Even though StampData has miles of specialized code to deal with all this, there is also a long todo list of aspects that are still not handled adequately.

3267:. My first reflex is to say that the deletions are wikilawering run amuck - the lists are per-country because the original list was gigantic, and splitting them up was the reasonable solution, and it seems biased to assert that the US stamp program is somehow "more important" than those of Vanuatu, Haiti, etc. But I suppose it's possible to develop some kind of neutral standard for which lists are allowed to stay, and which can never acceptable for Knowledge, and so I'm posting here to collect people's thoughts on what the rule should be. 2376:

is now, each type just lists the countries that used that type but in your draft it will have substantially many more entries, even if you just use the current details. Seems like a hell of a lot of work for not a lot of gain but if you are up to the job that's up to you to devote all that time. I think your reasons for changing the layout are flawed. The new version will also likely be incomplete and like the current layout will have the same problem of being difficult to find useful content, though I am not convinced of the latter.

3427:

etc, and so for them the value of a list seems intuitively obvious. Without that personal history, it seems like more of a random topic. Plus, there have been stamps issued for trivial reasons, especially by certain countries in recent years, and even the philatelic experts are unsure how to handle them (some catalogues list them, and some don't). So I think a workable rule is going to need some background research - on my agenda, but has to compete with other activities. :-)

31: 2186:, which has been up for a decade though not especially popular. At 70,000+ lines of PHP driving the website, I expect I can claim to have written more stamp-specific code than any other human. (And yet, that's not really a big resume enhancer, ha ha.) Anyway, having actually built an online catalog most of the way to being complete, there are a couple really tough issues beyond the easier ones of licensing and volunteer participation: 262:. some editors quote US law in trying to use such images, including stamps, as you have, but post 1978 all USPS stamps are copyright and cannot be used unless they follow the policy. In general use of stamps can only be used on the enwiki when they are used to illustrate the stamps in article about the stamps themselves and not the subject of the stamp. So using a stamp in an article about the person or place shown are not allowed. See 239:. Weirdly enough, the USOC is not as forgiving about using any image containing the Olympic Rings. There are a couple of other persons/organizations also being strict on this. This I know due to being told on restrictions for first day cover cachets, with the USPS telling cachet-makers of cases where obvious design elements would require payments of royalties to the person or organization depicted on the stamp. 2127:. Then open the wikitext for the page, and see how little the editors needed to type manually to get all of that information. Imagine a world in which you can enter a fact once, such as the original issue year for a stamp or a record sales price, and that fact could appear in every language edition of your catalogue automatically, even if the contributor only speaks one language. And much of this can be done 3701:, 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. -- 4071:, 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. -- 4505:. At this stage I doubt France can support two separate articles but if a combined article were to get too long then there could be a reason to separate it into two. Let's see what sources you can come up with in the meantime. Many of the "postage stamps and postal history" articles are lacking but they take a lot of time to expand properly especially without suitable sources. 448: 3203: 412:, an interesting discussion among TheVirginianHistorian, Masem, Hammersoft and Seraphimblade on the use of USPS non-free images, whether they should be treated with the same NFCC exemption as currency, or whether each stamp should be included only if it is treated as critically acclaimed exemplar of the fine arts before inclusion in topical stamp articles such as 2099:. An example to understand this answer: if Knowledge wants to illustrate a work of art, copyright rules on this work of art do apply, even if this page uses a stamp reproducing this work of art; however, if the objective is to illustrate the stamp, this copyright does not apply. This is why philatelic catalogues are published without legal issues. 2590: 3902:

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.

1017:, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time. 2412:

to reach a reasonable level of completion to allow it to make its way to mainspace). I haven't reached the Ireland section yet so that's why the country's list is still not included. I will definitely not replace the current list by the new one until I make sure that everything mentioned in the old one is included in the new one.

3426:

I don't know if a wider discussion would go much differently. I suspect there is a strong age correlation; people over 50 remember having to think about how to get stamps, deciding which types to use, reading announcements in the newspaper, having bar arguments about whether so-and-so was on a stamp,

3400:

I've seen a few of these discussions at Articles for Discussion. I have a lot of sympathy for the editors who created these, due to the reasonable assumption that the topic is notable. There is presumably some topics where notability is obvious: List of Countries, List of Chemical Elements and while

3306: 2726:

The overprinted stamps were originally issued by the British colony of Southern Rhodesia in 1964 and so are covered by crown copyright (since expired). The fact that they were overprinted at UDI doesn't change that as the overprinting is insufficient to create a new work for copyright purposes (in my

2375:

Um, interesting but are you not concerned that by listing every type of revenue stamp issued by every country the list will be extremely cumbersome. I only checked Ireland and see just one entry when the current list has many entries but maybe you are just not finished with that one. The way the list

2226:

I personally think that this catalogue would be nearly impossible to compile, and the issues raised by other editors above are valid - I would be especially concerned with the lack of contributors. Rather than a "universal philatelic catalog", I think an effort to improve the coverage of philately on

1902:

in English but it is rather sparse with few editors. For two reasons would be the place for such an expanded project; it already exists and I expect you would need permission from the foundation to start a completely new project. I, for one, have made just 11 edits there in 14 years here when most of

685:

The first removed section seems plausible but ideally should have a source. The second removed section should be nuked from orbit and an Adminstrator should seriously consider hiding that content as serious coatracking and a potential BLP violation (one would expect the name to be a household name in

4492:

looks quite good. I'm not great at reading German but can speak it reasonably well, so maybe one should use that as a basis. Without sources, your work so far looks quite good but I can't see if it will be verified easily. That's a problem I've had with French translations. Several years ago I wrote

4040:

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

3475:

I think when people try to delete lists of things that are very wide in nature, it might not be necessary to find one volume that covers everything. To repeat an argument I used elsewhere, if someone proposed to delete History of USA and someone could not find one book that covered it all, but found

3441:

I share your concern. Reading between the lines, I got the impression that you could prove it is a notable subject by the books you mentioned somewhere and if there was a centralised discussion on this, you might not need to fight 75 arguments, just one central one. I suppose deleted articles could

2352:

In the new draft I am currently adding information about British Commonwealth countries and other countries which I was able to find info about online, but there are many others which I don't have any information on. If other users can add the list of different types of revenue stamps which was used

2198:

How do you reconcile contradictory source data? One of the fun aspects of StampData is that I have accumulated a bunch of data from other stamp catalog websites, and can generate internal reports of data that different sources disagree on. Some facts are easy; the face value is printed right on the

2134:

As for size, I believe there have been around a quarter million stamp designs made, and then there are other things, like the different cancels. A few million items, if we're lucky to get that much contribution? Wikidata can already handle that scale. They've already imported information about 30

1989:

I'm not surprised by this suggestion but, no, a catalogue is not a database, it's a reference work, just like a dictionary or an encyclopedia. It's exactly the same. Furthermore, the objective is to get many contributors (easy contribution) and many readers, and this is not compatible with Wikidata.

763:

to update the infobox and add the proposed "Overview" section. Given my conflict of interest, I will not edit the article directly and seek uninvolved editors to review the draft for accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability. I will be submitting additional edit requests to address the article's other

3886:

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

3490:

You are right in that one source isn't necessary. As a practical matter, for any list that grows over time, printed works are only going to cover up to the most recent edition, and it would be some twisted logic to argue that a list is sufficiently notable for WP until the end of the year in which

2812:

was that it had the constitutional effect of making the Colony of Southern Rhodesia de jure in existence for the period 1965-1979. As such government intellectual property (eg stamps) created in that period would be Crown intellectual property at the time of issue. However, my suspicion (opinion!)

2711:

What is the basis of using a PD-UKGov tag? Production does not convey intellectual property... Would the fact that the Lancaster House Agreement re-established Southern Rhodesia, which legally meant that from the period 1965-1979 there was a revision to the constitutional status quo (as if no UDI),

2411:

It is a lot of work - particularly because I'm trying to add references wherever these are available unlike the current list - and this is why I'm only adding a few countries at a time (I don't have the time or inclination to do it all at one go so it's a gradual process which will take a long time

2407:

Another advantage of the draft list is that you can easily see what information is missing. In the current list, if you look at "National Insurance" and you see a handful of countries you would assume that those are the only countries in the world which issued this type of stamp. On the new list if

2403:

single entity, eg. Indian princely states would be grouped into just one section since there are hundreds of those states and most used similar or the same types of stamps). But who knows how many different types are still missing in the current list? I myself have no idea, but it's definitely more

2394:

My issue with the old list (ie. the current article) is that the different types of revenue stamps vary a lot from country to country, and they are called by different names in different countries. An "Excise" stamp from Ireland might have the same function as a "Cigarette Duty" stamp from the Cape

2194:

that lumped them all together as "perf 10-12"! Similarly, some catalogs differentiate color shades, or watermark orientations, and others can't be be bothered. This means that there is no existing catalog whose numbers can serve as a definitive index, nor even much of a consensus to try. (Compare

1745:

I'd like to propose a new Wikimedia project: a universal philatelic catalog, i.e. studying stamps from all countries, but also everything collected by postal or fiscal philatelists: cancels and all other postal markings, postal stationary, international reply coupons, etc. This catalog will not try

1651:

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you?

1933:

My questions about pictures are not about what is currently allowed (I know current rules) but how to achieve the objective. This is why my 1st question (what's the legal basis allowing this?) is the most important one. I ask the question because I don't know the answer. A clear answer to this 1st

1929:

This catalogue is not ambitious enough: each line of the table could become a page (including the whole stamp history, proofs, etc.), and it should not be limited to stamps. Just like Knowledge or Wiktionary, it's the unreasonable objective which leads to success. Expertise is not the major issue:

1826:

I'd like to start with three linguistic versions: fr (the one I'll contribute to), en and zh. Who would be interested in contributing (in these languages or other languages)? Please, feel free to forward and translate this proposal and translate it when needed. If there is interest in the project,

1392:

just like the Russian one. This should all be uploaded to the commons only as all those categories are on the commons. One BIG problems is that you claim these as your own work. That is false, you just scanned or photographed the cards, so you must attribute the creator, who is the post office and

787:

template. I checked the Italian entry about individual countries copyright status but it was very deficient, so based on some discussion with an Italian editor who confirmed the 70 pma rule applies (which some of the uploads do not even comply with) and the Italian PD template does not apply (see:

4434:

I figured that since WP Philately is listed on the USPS Talk page, I might find interested editors here. As you can probably tell from my username, I'm a USPS employee with a COI, so I can't edit the agency's article myself. I need non-COI editors to assess the validity of my proposed changes. If

3379:

is not trivia... :-) But the debating illustrates a practical problem - how does one justify a list in such a way that future skeptics don't try to take aim at it? When Eclecticology and I and others first worked on these lists in the early days, notability seemed so obvious it didn't need to be

2189:

What counts as a distinct type of stamp? For instance, for booklet stamps the Scott catalog declares it as one type, which the Michel catalog has a different number for each combination of perforated and straight edges. What about varying perfs? One catalog might say "perf 11-13" while another

300:

Which is far broader than just "confirming US law." In additions, stamps prior to 1978 do not even hold the USPS copyright (dividing line is the USPS issue for its creation). Such stamps are governed by older regulations covering banknotes, stamps and other government obligations, explaining why

4247:

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

3715:

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

2398:

In addition, there are also many other entries in the current list are too country-specific, eg. I'm pretty sure that only the UK issued Public Records (Land Revenue Records and Inrolments) stamps, that only India issued Vakil stamps or that only Western Australia issued Egg Stabilisation Charge

3901:

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

3603:

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.

2476:

Do we have any editors who can take some photos of the four black pillar boxes? They are only scheduled to be in that state for the month of October, so please get out and take some photos before they disappear again. There are in London (Acre Lane, Brixton), Glasgow (Byres Road), Cardiff (King

351:

If Knowledge is a good source - Abraham Borgardus seems likely? Brady not as much, Gurney? Or the Pach Brothers - who seem to have made tons of portraits. I suppose the next question is which one of those would have been most likely to do the greatly reduced miniatures for the labels in 1869?

1907:

issuers can do, considering there are about 10,000 new stamps issued worldwide each year. With reference to your questions posed above, the only one of consequence refers to the commons images, so you should know that the commons only accepts freely licensed files so many stamp images would be

1860:

I think so: this cannot be compared to Knowledge pages, as the objective is very different, and contributing would be easier, just like it is easier to create a Wiktionary page than to create a full Knowledge page. Such sites already exist, but they are much less ambitious. The objective is to

257:

Unfortunately we have a much higher standard than the US fair use concept. Besides which fair use does nto require any permission from the copyright holder, so what the USPS states only confirms US law. However, here on the English Knowledge any use of a copyright image must comply with all 10

3591:

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

4187:

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. —

3918:

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

988:

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template

111:

Great idea! Maybe we can have an informal meet of the Philately Project possibly at a convention center or hotel bar? I will be presenting a talk on Tuesday May 31 about solving the mystery of two early Mexican stamps using paper fiber analysis (among other evidence). Details

723:

is being discussed at FFD but it may well be in the public domain. Does anyone know the designer which would verify its copyright status? Do any of the catalogues list the designers? Otherwise it may just stay on the enwiki as local when it could be moved to the commons. See

3460:

doesn't seem to have any generic "people on stamps" publications, but they do have a 5-volume series of women on stamps worldwide, so that would be a solid source for lists of women on stamps for each country, and many of those appearances have interesting backstories too.

2452:

Hello, all. Stamp collecting is a hobby of some members of my wider family and I have a fair collection myself which was built in times past. I've only just become aware that there is a project here dedicated to the hobby, even though I did perform a GA review last year on

2015:'s advice and talk to the Wikidata folks. They have some "games" that allow very easy contributions. Even if the final product ended up elsewhere, they could provide some support, e.g., by letting you link to items or automatically assembling some information into 1383:

and because they have impressed stamps, they are postal cards even though they have a picture side. You will also notice there are subcategories for definitive and commemorative stamps, so you should categorise accordingly. There is also a Soviet Union category:

2993:

I can't find coverage of the symbols used, e.g. for the different types of cancellation marks. Should we include them, and where should they go? I can create clean SVGs of the symbols that don't have Unicode support (like the CTO symbol, or pen cancellation). —

2256:

I am for completeness, however this may not mean a page per stamp, you can have a page per issue or type, whatever is required to meet notability requirements. If you can get the data consistent, the bulk of the translation is done, the more complex stuff is

2181:

I recently got auto-prodded into paying more attention to WP doings, so I've been wandering around and getting back up speed, and this caught my eye. My interest in stamp cataloging goes back nearly 30 years, and the current state of my efforts can be seen at

3516: 1908:

excluded from illustration which would be the point of an expanded catalogue. This applies mostly to stamps that are less than 70 or 50 years old (depending on the country) or where the artists are not yet dead long enough, which is also usually 70 years pma.

1352:

of the said cards have personal texts on the reverse that tend to be written with a blue-ink pen. Anybody willing to help me with their knowledge to erase these personal texts before uploading? (Otherwise I will simply withhold uploading the reverses of such

3262:

are proposed to be deleted, because they are non-notable, poorly-referenced, etc. At least one of the comments suggested that all of the lists might be intrinsically non-notable, which come as a surprise to the many people who've worked on, for instance,

3519:. In my latest comment on that page, I indicated that some country-specific philatelic literature does include lists of people on stamps. Perhaps we should limit the discussion of all this to the bulk nomination page to have everything in one place? 3282:

I think it doesn't matter which country it is at all, but depends on the quality of the individual list. It shouldn't be just a list of names whithout further information - you could just use categories for that - and it should be somewhat complete.

2623:

That site seems to be a user driven catalogue where buying and selling also takes place, so no that would not considered be a reliable source. Well established catalogues are the way to go though for some modern stamps, going back to 2002, the UPUs

1822:

This project might seem overambitious, but it's the same for all Wikimedia projects, and I have experience of what is achievable, after having created more than 1,360,000 pages on the French Wiktionary (including more than 43,000 manual creations).

1337:

Dear members of the project, I have re-acquired my cache of Soviet-times postcards and I'm in the process of uploading them to Knowledge (Wikicommons). However, I could certainly use some help and guidance from the local band of philatelists here.

574:

many years ago but there have been many such bills introduced in many countries, so it could be made into a stand alone article. Has anyone some sources for different countries? Royal Mail have just done so, Ireland did so in 1984, and there was a

3342:. It looks like some of the pages aren't tagged with this WikiProject's banner, but would be of interest. Ah, I see there's a more specific section about this above. Keeping this notification, however, as others have been nominated since then. — 2149:

Yes, I know the Wikidata rationale, and also the drawbacks. I agree with the interest of sharing facts (including this kind of facts) and making them accessible through very powerful tools. This is not my concern. My concern is that

915:

are stubs which can be greatly expanded. When I have time I can work on many British Empire/Commonwealth countries and a few select non-Commonwealth countries, but would anyone be interested in writing articles about other countries?

839:

Could some editors with knowledge regarding revenue stamps please assist in writing articles about the revenue stamps of individual countries? I had begun writing some articles back in 2012–14, and wrote three more articles this week

4430:

one. My main goal with these requests is to ensure that descriptions of certain recent events in the agency's are fully correct, and where possible, to add fresh information that's been reported by trusted journalistic publications.

2230:

Unfortunately, WikiProject Philately seems to have a severe lack of high-quality articles. Of the 4436 articles that fall within the scope of the project, there are only 4 featured articles and 15 good articles. Most of these (eg.

3401:

this is less clear, the assumption was reasonable. Also it seems that a small number of editors are now rushing to libraries to find offline sources, during a pandemic, with a 7 days window, for maybe 100+ deletion nominations.

1029:. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals. 1861:

produce the major reference catalogue, just like Knowledge is the reference encyclopedia, and Wiktionary the reference dictionary. Collectors would be happy to use what they own as illustrations of this reference catalogue.

2766:. The copyright holder of many countries is often the post office when it's a government body. The producer is not the copyright holder, that belongs to the creator. I don't know what you want to use this image for but it 424:, USPS reprinting out-of-copyright artwork as in their recent Civil War battle series, and USPS stamps of the literary arts series with the USPS critical fine arts descriptions which accompanies the Julia de Burgos stamp. 3476:

two books that covered "early history of USA" and "recent history of USA" I think that would prove notability. I'm not certain of this, but I don't know if one source to cover everything is necessary? I could be wrong.

2813:

is that Crown property is transferred to the successor state (ie Zimbabwe) following independence...so I will need to go down the non-free usage route. FWIW, if my opinion is correct, I suspect a number of the stamps

3670:

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

1026: 1897:

If philatelic societies, dealers and publishers, with all their expertise, cannot do then then how can with do such a thing with only volunteer editors. This is just not a viable proposition. We already have the

764:

sections later, but for now I'm wondering if a WikiProject Philately member may be willing to help with this initial request? I can answer questions on my user talk page or on the article's talk page. Thank you,

978:

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

292:

Credit Language: For all the aforementioned uses, users must cite the source of the image, the United States Postal Service®, and include language such as: "© United States Postal Service. All rights reserved."

4435:

anyone from the WP Philately community wants to give my requests a review, please use the links above and let me know what you think. I'm happy to answer questions or provide clarification, as needed. Thanks!

3597: 3558: 3551: 475: 2338: 2154:

contributors of each wiki must be able to discuss in a common language. This is a real need in most wikis (this is less a need for Commons, as contributors don't collaborate for producing a good page).

3137:

and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

2727:

opinion). The 2/6 independence stamp was issued by the "rebel" government in Rhodesia and as UDI was not recognised by the British government, I assume it is therefore not covered by crown copyright.

2648:

Thank you very much for the quick response. The stamp I'm interested in is from Rhodesia and was issued in 1965. The stamp itself is dated (not as in a watermark) as the stamp celebrates the date of

2092:, but this would imply that major contributions would be on Wikidata, a project with no common discussion language, and this would lead to failure, as most potential contributors don't speak English. 3404:

Would a fairer approach be to have a wider discussion if, in general, List of people on postage stamps is a notable thing? I don't have the experience to know what that forum would be. Maybe

2950: 3756:

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

1033: 2404:

than 400. If the article gets too long, sorting it by country makes it easier to split it up into a group of articles rather than a single article - just like the postage stamps compendium.

3300: 3264: 4395:

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.

3721: 3561:

closed as keep, consensus was quite clear that the general topics of people on postage stamps was notable. Members may wish to note the sources that were used to establish notability.

4414:

Hey there! I'm stopping by this WikiProject to ask the folks here if they would like to review one or both of two open edit requests on the United States Postal Service Talk page, the

3855: 1644:! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the 626: 3593: 3339: 2925: 2337:. I had started the list back in 2013, but over time I found it to be rather useless since it is incomplete, too long and it is rather difficult to find useful content in it. I had 539: 2102:

About Wikivoyage: I tried (once) to contribute (in French), and it's close to impossible because of the way templates are used. I'm not optimistic, at least for the French version.

3014: 599: 4343:

Quality assessments by Knowledge editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at

3944: 4381:

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

1676: 164:

Is there a difference between a "postal museum" and a "philatelic museum"? If yes, there should be articles explaining what each type of museum is about. If no, the articles

2649: 1883:

I think you would have major copyright problems as the majority of stamps (certainly from the last 70 years or so) are in copyright and therefore not eligible for Commons.

3851: 2549: 2208:

as inspiration for how to bring order out of chaos. One possibility is to design a process to import the appropriately-licensed parts of StampData content into WikiData.

720: 622: 3581: 2303: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3648: 1079: 1046: 3412:? - more experienced editors might know better. I am neutral on issues of philately but the status quo seems to be rushing something bigger than the average article. 668:

Hello all, you might want to keep an eye on this article as someone has repeatedly added suspect content in recent weeks. I've reverted for now to a clean version by

329:

I am using a photo label made from 1869-1870 in New York City. The person had an office on Nassau Street, in Lower Manhattan. Has anyone seen earlier photographic

142:

meeting in the morning but maybe a lunch meetup would work though Tuesday is a rather busy day. I have a philatelic dinner from 6:30, so let's see who else logs in.

4551: 4540: 3357:

I am quite disturbed by these nominations. The underlying argument from the contributors most active with deletion proposals seem to be that stamps are irrelevant

2242:

It would be far more useful to have some interesting good quality articles relating to philately on Knowledge, than a massive, perpetually incomplete catalogue. --

1679:

and am sending this message to WikiProject Philately since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at

4348: 2523: 1680: 217:, it has a parameter that reads " an educational article about the entity represented by the image" -- so, does that parameter reference the subject of the stamp 72: 67: 59: 4314: 662: 499: 1488: 2428:

Very clear and concise reasoning, thanks. A lot of work still to do and my hat is off to you for taking this one. If there is anything I can do, let me know.

3051: 2357: 1302: 700:

Thanks, Dave. I agree that the first part might have been verifiable but that wasn't done and, given that the rest was dangerous nonsense, I removed it all.

2763: 1270:. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like 4455: 4440: 3609: 2123:

of Knowledge to Wikidata. If you want a multi-lingual, fact-based project, then Wikidata can help you. I suggest that you go look at the long infobox at

2084:

the same. I'm afraid that the quantity and variety of data available is greatly underestimated: whole books have been written on some issues (e.g. Chinese

1843: 2105:

The most important rationale for this project could be the development of Wikimedia projects in China. I think it's important, and that it's worth a try.

725: 409: 4485: 1780:

Knowledge already includes pages with lists of stamps, but Knowledge is not a catalog. Would you imagine half of Knowledge pages dedicated to philately?

686:

Australia if that content was true, but even Google only brings up a handful of results - and none which connect the other matter to Tasmanian stamps).

3919:

non-philatelist visitors, who probably make up the majority of readers of those pages. Stamp catalogues can continue to use whatever name they choose.

3381: 3376: 2096: 1414: 4502: 4284:

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.

4489: 4006: 3384:, and since the banknote design process is 90% identical to the stamp process, it seems worth studying that list and its background more closely. 2457:, which passed. If I can help you in any way, I'd be willing to try, though I think it would have to be a family effort. Thanks and all the best. 1922:

Thanks for the link to the World Stamp Catalogue. I wasn't aware of its existence. With some difficulty, I found a page looking like a catalogue:

1702: 1653: 378:

appear to have been in Boston at the exact same time for the same period of time. Might someone verify that they are different persons perhaps?

1792:

Wikivoyage is dedicated to travelling, another universal leisure; in the case of philately, the existence of a project seems even more justified,

1691:

and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as

4436: 3605: 1964:

A catalog sounds to me as much like a database as like a collection of wiki pages. Have you checked into the possibility of building it within

1385: 4593:

You’re invited to look at the article. Follow the instructions on the PROD notice if you wish to endorse or object to the article’s deletion.

1393:

not you. It's good to hear you found your old material again. I've moved the post to the project where it might get more response. Good luck.

1165:" in his 1941 obituary. Has anyone in this WP come across his name and do you think he is sufficiently notable to have his own article please? 333:(the image appears to be a print on glossy photographic paper as nearly as I can determine.) Can we guess at the possible photographers who 2346: 1786:

it's not only a leisure: postal history and fiscal history are specialized sciences, about things with an official character (in most cases),

1106: 4253: 3188: 2342: 1799:

popular leisure in China; this project could be the opportunity to develop Wikimedia projects in China, as it is not politically sensitive.

1731: 1590: 47: 17: 4368:

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to

2297: 1562:

though apparently produced by the postal service. Who is to stop you putting a stamp on and mailing them in a postbox? Have you seen any?

1389: 1805:

Questions to lawyers: magazines, paper catalogs... reproduce stamps, and postal administrations seem to favour this practice (free ad).

1224: 4378:, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories. 2019:. It's also a good option for factual information that you want translated between languages. I recommend that you post your idea at 1648:

that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

1589:

article from scratch, so as to make it more useful for readers. I invite you to participate in a discussion on the article's talk page

1618: 1082:

so editors can try to fins suitable images for these articles. Images needed is now also included in the project's assessment banner.

1004: 3259: 2814: 1425:

What is "definite stamp"? I'm not familiar with that term, is it an everyday-use stamap, the exact opposite of "commemorative stamp"?

801: 4423: 4415: 4372: 4359: 1238: 4522:

This article won't written in a night, so I will go along my personal library along with smaller articles around the main history.

2195:

to WikiSpecies, where there is plenty of naming chaos, but the professionals at least share the goal of authoritative consistency.)

2356:

If this new list gets too long (which it probably will) I have no problem in splitting it up into multiple articles just like the

266:#3. You should actually be a bit happy that we are more liberal than many other language wikis that prohibit ANY non-free images. 4203: 4139: 3244: 2652:

and there is no mistaking its origin - in that case if adding the image to Commons is further verification necessary? Regards, --

1125: 1102: 993: 800:

and if you can add any details, such as names or dates that would be appreciated. unfortunately several of the images, mostly in

517: 4365:, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment. 3987:, one of the four constituent countries of the UK, is in Great Britain, although each of the other three constituent countries, 1543:

have imprinted stamp, but also explicitly say "not to be mailed without an envelope". Which category should I put them into? --

796:), I've rewritten the entry together with a list of known designers and their life dates, similar to the France entry. It is at 203:

US Postage Stamp, issued in 1999, can be used with a fair use rationale in the article on the subject it depicts, the racehorse

3757: 3184: 2334: 1903:

my edits are philately related. Even trying to keep up with the newly issued stamps alone is an impossible task which only the

1727: 1586: 1579: 852:). However, there are many countries still missing, including many major ones, for example, there are still no articles about: 452: 440: 2191: 1274:), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the 4046: 3165: 1312: 753: 460: 429: 2788:

I understood and was just covering both types and was just about to link to the same page. I agree it cannot be on Commons.

1417:

so I re-attributed them as such (although it should be noted that later, in 2006, a newer law has overridden this, so they

337:

have taken the image? In the same series, there is also an Abraham Lincoln label - clearly the Berger photograph. Thanks.

1376: 797: 3584:

article. This WikiProject is listed on that article's Talk page, so I thought this might be a good place to ask for help.

3149: 2943: 1013: 4454:

Hello. I am making a small scale comeback on Knowledge although not the one in my native language. I put some typing on

4344: 3457: 2140: 2028: 849: 881: 783:

Earlier this month I noticed that an editor was uploading several Italian stamps to the commons using their version of

4120:

the best practice so far? Has any thought been given to creating an infobox specifically for philatelists? Inviting @

2572: 1063: 908: 789: 177: 1380: 1034:

article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject

200: 3965:, and hence entitled to call themselves "British". UK citizens from the part of the UK on the island of Ireland are 1645: 4042: 3380:

said. If it now does need to be said, how does one say it? In thumbing through the featured lists, I came across

2843:

Your logic is sound but I think you would need a lawyer's opinion to be sure that IP was covered by the agreement.

2684: 1052:

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the

564: 169: 38: 1923: 1683:, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with 901: 4494: 4223: 4157: 4114: 4104: 2809: 2683:. They were issues on 17 January 1966. I don't know what verification you need. They would go into this category 2462: 2271: 1275: 456: 425: 4527: 4471: 896: 886: 4579:

PHQ cards are postcards issued by the British Post Office depicting the designs of their commemorative stamps.

4498: 4463: 3145: 3037: 2500: 2408:

you go to "Slovenia" and you find the section empty you would know that there's some missing information there.

1695: 912: 876: 861: 751:, I've proposed an expanded and updated article as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I've saved my draft in full 93: 871: 856: 793: 211: 891: 4602: 4566: 4531: 4514: 4475: 4444: 4404: 4326: 4293: 4278: 4269: 4233: 4207: 4181: 4171: 4143: 4080: 4062: 4035: 4018: 3928: 3911: 3896: 3867: 3843: 3829: 3815: 3769: 3751: 3737: 3710: 3692: 3660: 3636: 3613: 3570: 3542: 3528: 3500: 3485: 3470: 3451: 3436: 3421: 3393: 3370: 3351: 3328: 3292: 3276: 3247: 3230: 3214: 3192: 3026: 3003: 2983: 2962: 2937: 2914: 2873: 2852: 2836: 2797: 2783: 2736: 2721: 2696: 2661: 2640: 2617: 2584: 2561: 2535: 2531: 2512: 2486: 2466: 2454: 2437: 2423: 2385: 2369: 2319: 2277: 2251: 2217: 2164: 2144: 2136: 2114: 2075: 2068: 2064: 2056: 2032: 2024: 1999: 1977: 1973: 1943: 1917: 1892: 1870: 1855: 1836: 1735: 1665: 1630: 1602: 1571: 1552: 1500: 1482: 1467: 1441: 1402: 1366: 1327: 1287: 1250: 1228: 1220: 1189: 1174: 1162: 1137: 1118: 1091: 1068: 962: 948: 925: 866: 828: 813: 773: 737: 707: 695: 679: 655: 638: 611: 588: 555: 529: 511: 487: 464: 433: 398: 361: 346: 310: 275: 248: 229: 189: 173: 151: 125: 105: 1930:

dictionary publishers, with all their expertise, have never produced such a major result as wiktionaries...

3307:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands (2nd nomination)

1709: 1626: 1039:

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

845: 841: 769: 2861: 1342:

I am not sure whether they should be classified as "post cards" or "postal cards" in English. Please see

4523: 4481: 4467: 4459: 4385: 4274:

I don't see any point in reinventing the wheel. Making a philatelist specific infobox template when the

4252:

which might be better than searching their own contributions. It might even be easier to search through

4058: 4031: 3924: 3892: 3825: 3765: 3733: 3688: 3524: 3106: 3022: 2999: 2979: 2977:

has been significantly upgraded and expanded. Feel free to further improve it, if anyone is interested.

2848: 2793: 2732: 2625: 2419: 2365: 2345:

about a possible way of rewriting the article but I got no replies. Since then I have been working on a

2260:

You would need wide buy-in from the philatelic community, either to do it on Knowledge or on WikiStamps.

2247: 2080:

Thanks for advice. However, Wikidata cannot be the solution: would you move Knowledge to Wikidata? It's

1888: 1851: 1598: 1053: 958: 944: 921: 824: 691: 413: 185: 4583: 4573: 4026:

I think the key point here is that Great Britain is not a stamp-issuing entity, the United Kingdom is.

1968:

first? After all, WD already handles paintings and other similar items in a very comprehensive manner.

4462:. For now I know it's messy but a start, and I welcome any comment how to manage this page, perhaps a 3018: 1346:(note that it's 2-sided, see "other versions" section for the other side) and advise where it belongs; 4199: 4135: 3496: 3466: 3432: 3389: 3272: 3126: 2869: 2832: 2821: 2752: 2717: 2657: 2613: 2458: 2268: 2213: 1723: 1473:

If it's not a definitive or commemorative impressed stamp, just put it loose in the parent category.

1262: 1205: 417: 4121: 2670: 1150: 1144: 4510: 4322: 4289: 4265: 4097: 3907: 3672: 3632: 3344: 3134: 3042:

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to

3015:

Commons:Commons:Village_pump#Stamps_of_Country_and_Country_on_stamps_categories_and_their_interplay

2958: 2933: 2902: 2779: 2705: 2692: 2636: 2580: 2557: 2508: 2493: 2482: 2433: 2381: 2315: 1913: 1567: 1478: 1398: 1246: 1185: 1170: 1133: 1114: 1087: 809: 733: 634: 607: 584: 551: 483: 271: 227: 147: 101: 4072: 4010: 3859: 3835: 3807: 3743: 3702: 3652: 2020: 1899: 576: 287:

Educational Use : Noncommercial, educational uses limited to teaching, scholarship, and research.

4400: 3442:

be brought back, but I saw advantages if this could interrupt the widespread deletion proposals.

3161: 2541: 2527: 2160: 2110: 2060: 2012: 1995: 1984: 1969: 1939: 1866: 1846:

for instance), do you envisage that there are sufficient interested editors to make this viable?

1832: 1812:

how to proceed to do the same (without illustrations, a philatelic catalog is not really usable)?

1661: 1211: 1154: 525: 507: 644:

This arose before, many years ago, and was left in abeyance without any real consensus. A clear

295:(as I understand it, contributors can insist on being credited as copyright holder on Knowledge) 207:. My understanding is probably not, as the article in question isn't about the stamp. But at 3717: 3258:

So we have a developing situation where several per-country lists of people on stamps, such as

2236: 1027:

RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace

784: 4257: 4244: 4164: 4076: 4014: 3863: 3839: 3811: 3747: 3725: 3706: 3656: 3566: 3481: 3447: 3417: 3226: 3218: 3096: 3047: 2677: 2023:

and see if anyone would give you advice on how Wikidata might be able to support your goals.

1622: 1528:

or post card is a rectangular piece of thick paper or thin cardboard intended for writing and

1323: 765: 759: 394: 383: 357: 342: 326: 306: 244: 121: 726:

Knowledge:Files for discussion/2017 May 31#File:1921 stamp Liechtenstein Gutenberg Castle.jpg

4068: 4054: 4027: 4009:

an interesting diagram that illustrates the geography and politics of the British Isles. --

3984: 3920: 3888: 3821: 3761: 3729: 3698: 3684: 3676: 3520: 3409: 3366: 3173: 2995: 2974: 2968: 2910: 2857: 2844: 2805: 2789: 2741: 2728: 2415: 2361: 2353:

by some of the countries which still have empty sections it would greatly improve the list.

2243: 1884: 1847: 1608: 1594: 972: 954: 940: 936: 917: 820: 687: 669: 540:

Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 3#Template:United States Postal Service

235:

The USPS seems to allow use of copyright images in articles about the subject of the stamp,

181: 4310: 4212: 4190: 4126: 3962: 3492: 3462: 3428: 3385: 3268: 3237: 3130: 2865: 2828: 2745: 2713: 2666: 2653: 2609: 2209: 1842:

Given that the majority of country pages here are at a very low level of development (see

1719: 1641: 1548: 1496: 1463: 1437: 1362: 1158: 375: 371: 2951:

Talk:Airmails of the United States#Shouldn't the title be "Airmail of the United States?"

3647:

Do the articles in the "Great Britain commemorative stamps..." family of articles (e.g.

3517:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lists of people on the postage stamps of countries (A-B)

3515:

I guess the closest thing to a general discussion about these is the bulk nomination at

2808:

thanks for the replies. I'm *not* a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding of the

1427:

Upon my research, I believe the answer to that is "yes", please correct me if I'm wrong.

4587: 4506: 4318: 4285: 4261: 3903: 3628: 3538: 3319: 3288: 3169: 2954: 2929: 2895: 2802: 2775: 2771: 2701: 2688: 2645: 2632: 2576: 2553: 2504: 2478: 2429: 2377: 2311: 2008: 1909: 1563: 1474: 1394: 1242: 1181: 1166: 1129: 1110: 1083: 805: 729: 702: 674: 650: 630: 627:

Talk:Postage stamps and postal history of Great Britain#Requested move 19 February 2017

603: 580: 547: 479: 453:

Knowledge talk: Non-free content#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps

441:

Knowledge talk: Non-free content#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps

421: 267: 259: 222: 143: 97: 2669:: Are you asking about some of these, first 15 images on the page, overprinted stamps 2608:? Is it a reliable source for the purposes of origin and date of stamps? Regards, -- 1818:

would it be possible to use Commons to store illustrations? Would there be conditions?

4396: 4050: 3970: 3940: 3624: 3620: 3405: 3157: 3043: 2330: 2156: 2106: 2004: 1991: 1935: 1904: 1862: 1828: 1686: 1657: 1283: 645: 543: 521: 503: 263: 165: 4216: 3562: 3533:

It would be a good idea to give positive examples of lists that are worth keeping.

3477: 3443: 3413: 3222: 3210: 3116: 1319: 748: 579:

in 1997. Anyone interested in collaborating. We could start a sandbox for a start.

390: 379: 353: 338: 302: 240: 117: 2341:

but it was decided that it should be kept despite the problems with it. In 2019 I

2227:

Knowledge would be much more beneficial - both for Knowledge and philately itself.

1746:

to provide estimated standard prices, because such prices are always subjective.

1239:

Talk:United States Postal Service#Merge with United States Post Office Department

3760:

just for the sake of consistency. There are others too that may be better left.

3362: 2906: 2860:

here's the UK statute that confirms my suspicion: see s.11 Property and assets:

1514: 932: 416:. An exception is already been made for stamps with notoriety errors beyond the 204: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2124: 931:

Some online references which might be useful for potential editors include the

139: 135: 4598: 4562: 2190:

assigns different numbers for 11, 12, and 13. US collectors would not like a

1544: 1492: 1459: 1433: 1372: 1358: 571: 113: 4313:: I've added a few of these article with improper infoboxes to this category 4049:

using "United Kingdom". The question to ponder is: is this a rare case where

2304:

c:Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain#Country transclusion citations don't work

2204:

That said, I still think cataloging is worthwhile, and we have projects like

1045:

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the

1011:

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members

4484:: It's nice to see some returning philatelic activity, so welcome back. The 3534: 3310: 3284: 1559: 2629: 3627:

instead of editing directly. This is a common suggestion for COI editors.

3202: 1753:), including everything which may be of same help for identification (eg. 387: 4229:

and when I happen upon one I usually refine the details into the correct

3992: 3491:

the source was published, then becomes instantly becomes un-notable. :-)

3050:. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 2232: 2128: 1965: 1525: 1413:

Stupid me, I've just noticed that they indeed bear a copyright notice of

538:

These two template have now been listed with a proposal to merge them at

476:

c:Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:Mailboxes in England

2758:

would be the one to use except that a 1965 stamp cannot comply with the

2349:

with the intention of eventually replacing the current article with it.

2016: 96:? There are many society meetings and hopefully some of us can meet up. 4260:

infobox now looks much better, so thanks for your work in this regard.

3988: 3961:

citizens of the UK, no matter which of its islands they come from, are

3948: 3338:

Several lists of people on postage stamps in are up for deletion. See

3144:, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at 2095:

Also note that I got a detailed answer to my 1st question (in French):

3201: 2862:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1980/395/pdfs/uksi_19800395_en.pdf

1107:

Talk:Apollo 15 postage stamp incident#Requested move 19 September 2018

3080: 3059: 2924:

You may want to comment on this Commons stamp deletion nomination at

1357:

I appreciate in advance any help you might be willing to provide! --

2949:

A discussion about the title of this article has been started here:

2673:? These are British government produced stamps and use the template 3802:), where the problem is quite apparent. They should be renamed as " 3666:

As a part of the United Kingdom, there are no postage stamps valid

1783:

dedicating a Wikimedia project to philately may seem strange, but:

4410:

Seeking editor input on United States Postal Service edit requests

4245:

point this out to the editor and asked them to correct their error

3996: 2522:

Contributors to this portal may be interested in my new monograph

1815:

would this have consequences on possible licenses for the project?

1619:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space

4317:

as I get time to go through the offending editors contributions.

3820:

I doubt anyone would oppose you as it is self-evidently correct.

3742:

I guess they all need moving to the more inclusive name then. --

3559:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lists of people on postage stamps

3552:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lists of people on postage stamps

2671:

https://colnect.com/en/stamps/list/country/267-Rhodesia/year/1966

2131:. Try it out, and then imagine the questions being about stamps. 3580:

Hello! I'm a U.S. Postal Service employee seeking to update the

2759: 2706:

https://colnect.com/en/stamps/stamp/303555-Independence-Rhodesia

2571:

Perhaps a few more eyes could be helpful on this merge proposal

2205: 1749:

This catalog might also include the philatelic vocabulary (e.g.

1715:

should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

804:

are therefore copyright violations and will have to be deleted.

985:

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

3947:(UK) sits. Another major part of the UK sits on the island of 3623:

so I have posted the suggestion on their talk page to use the

2926:

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christmas ink smear stamp.jpg

2605: 25: 2097:

fr:Wikipédia:Legifer/janvier_2020#Droits_sur_les_timbre-poste

1206:

Talk:Scott catalogue#Possible error re: Scott-Krause lawsuit?

4347:, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent 3651:) not include stamps issued for use in Northern Ireland? -- 2764:

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Zimbabwe#Copyright tags

2293:

Two posts on the commons may interest fellow philatelists:

1163:

one of the nation's most complete air-mail stamp collections

4501:

but I did not get around to that yet other than starting a

1271: 2748:

is not talking about the overprinted stamps. This licence

478:

which affect the structure of mailboxes in all countries.

3683:

for use in N.I. but still valid in the whole of the U.K.

3643:

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

3301:

List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands

3265:

List of people on the postage stamps of the United States

3181:

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from.

3092:

It will work on a variety of links, including those from

2704:, Again, thank you! I found the stamp I was looking for: 1934:

question is needed to be able to answer other questions.

1675:

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed

410:

Knowledge talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#USPS image use

4249: 4240: 4150: 3951:. The UK is a sovereign country, Great Britain is not. 3856:

Postage stamps and postal history of the United Kingdom

2501:

Talk:Cancellation (mail)#Requested move 21 January 2021

2183: 1267: 4547:

Should we keep it? Y'all are best qualified to judge:

4219:

added several philatelists using the improper infobox

3340:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Lists_of_people

3068:

John Smith "" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.

3009:

Category intersection of country and stamps on Commons

629:. More interested editors views would be appreciated. 1458:. Which category (on Commons) should I put it in? -- 600:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Tom of Finland stamps

474:

You may want to make some comment at this discussion

3945:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

3217:. Project members are invited to participate at the 2604:

Is someone able to indicate the consensus regarding

1308:

and a number of articles linked from it are lacking

3592:election. You can read my full edit request on the 2239:) have relatively marginal importance to philately. 1521:or indicium signifying the prepayment of postage." 1489:

c:Category:Airmail_postal_cards_of_the_Soviet_Union

237:

requiring only that its copyright be properly noted

4466:to put aside how to explain the postal evolution? 3852:Postage stamps and postal history of Great Britain 3148:. Questions, comments and requests can be made at 2550:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Barefoot Catalogue 2329:As part of my efforts to increase the coverage of 1109:that may be of interest to express your views on. 721:File:1921 stamp Liechtenstein Gutenberg Castle.jpg 623:Postage stamps and postal history of Great Britain 4177:. I was able to find corresponding parameters in 3582:Postal voting in the 2020 United States elections 2650:Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence 2477:Edward VII Avenue) and Belfast (Bedford Street). 2770:be possible to use it under the enwiki's strict 2129:from a smartphone, by answering simple questions 1640:Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the 1080:Category:Knowledge requested images of philately 301:"completely fake stamps" appear in old movies. 4351:was approved and has been implemented to add a 3587:I recently proposed a redraft of the article's 3260:List of people on the postage stamps of Vanuatu 2263:Of course catalogue numbers belong on Wikidata. 2119:As a long-time volunteer, I can and have moved 939:which contain listings of various countries. -- 282:Generally, no prior permission is required for: 172:should be merged, and so should the categories 3943:" is an island upon which a major part of the 2298:c:Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain#Page title 1681:Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2 1415:Ministry of Communications of the Soviet Union 1200:Can someone please take a look at the nigh on 4315:Category:Philately articles needing attention 3576:Updates to 2020 Postal Voting in U.S. Article 3017:and will be willing to share their opinions. 3013:Some of the people here may be interested in 2817:have incorrect licences (ie are actually not 2548:Can you help with more sources to save this: 2503:that you may be interested in commenting on. 1926:(with only a few stamps, but with pictures!). 1705:; or if an irregularly named infobox such as 663:Postage stamps and postal history of Tasmania 500:Template:List of United States airmail stamps 493:Template:List of United States airmail stamps 8: 4497:with the intent to write its sister article 4450:Postal history and postages stamps of France 3649:Great Britain commemorative stamps 2020–2029 2358:Category:Compendium of postage stamp issuers 2090:Even if the final product ended up elsewhere 1671:New bot to remove completed infobox requests 1652:We have collected all of these questions at 518:Template:List of United States Post Offices‎ 4456:Postage stamps and postal history of France 3054:. The idea is that it takes something like 2573:Talk:Cut square (philately)#Merger proposal 2333:on Knowledge, I am currently rewriting the 1386:c:Category:Postal cards of the Soviet Union 1101:There is a rename and move request for the 971:WikiProject collaboration notice from the 451:You are invited to join the discussion at 420:test elsewhere at WP in cases such as the 4215:well spotted. A few years ago the editor 3887:they all use "Great Britain" for the UK. 3596:, and the section draft is accessible on 3382:List of people on United States banknotes 1636:Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 1388:and I've added it to the parent category 621:An anonIP has requested a name change of 3673:regional postage stamps of Great Britain 3209:An article of interest to the project - 3032:User script to detect unreliable sources 2630:https://www.wnsstamps.post/en/Statistics 1390:c:Category:Postcards of the Soviet Union 4460:User:Onceaphilatelist#Ongoing_project_2 4428:Coronavirus pandemic and voting by mail 4339:Project-independent quality assessments 3254:Standards for lists of people on stamps 2339:nominated the list for deletion in 2016 1153:, a physician who collected artwork by 1002:The discussion about this can be found 516:I also request assistance in improving 4392: 4352: 3377:List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets 3052:39th most imported script on Knowledge 2815:c:Category:Stamps of Southern Rhodesia 790:c:User talk:Katharinaiv#Italian stamps 221:the stamp itself, or just the stamp? 199:Hi folks. I'm trying to determine if 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4552:Articles for deletion/Art Deco stamps 4541:Articles for deletion/Art Deco stamps 3774:Yes, I was only thinking of the six " 3213:— has been proposed for merging with 2712:mean the tag could be used? Regards, 2708:. This one was printed in Salisbury. 2524:A Sharp Eye on collecting US Classics 1809:what's the legal basis allowing this? 937:Barefoot's Revenue Stamps Information 7: 3334:Several lists nominated for deletion 2275:(the apparently calm and reasonable) 798:c:Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Italy 546:, so you may want to comment there. 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philately 4519:Hello. Thank you for your insights. 3804:United Kingdom commemorative stamps 1656:where you can leave your response. 1303:Postage stamps of the United States 757:, and submitted an edit request at 743:Updates to the Pitney Bowes article 577:European Postal Services Directive 4586:, has been proposed for deletion ( 4418:proposes updates to the article's 3776:Great Britain commemorative stamps 3142:not a script to be mindlessly used 2920:Canadian stamp deletion nomination 2011:, and I think you should consider 1256:A new newsletter directory is out! 953:Good idea. I will try to do some. 794:c:User talk:Ruthven#Italian stamps 498:I request assistance in improving 24: 4437:Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service 3606:Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service 3236:I have gone ahead and merged it. 3074:and turns it into something like 2953:. Others might some views on it. 1509:Postcards vs. postal cards vs ??? 1377:c:Category:Postal cards of Russia 1278:and someone will add it for you. 882:Revenue stamps of the Netherlands 594:Stamp article deletion discussion 389:avers it a coincidence. Sigh. 116:. Anyone interested is invited. 2588: 2499:There is a requested move here: 1789:this leisure is truly universal, 1266:has been created to replace the 1126:Apollo 15 postal covers incident 1103:Apollo 15 postage stamp incident 1042:So far, 84 editors have joined. 602:? Your input might be valuable. 446: 29: 4420:During the Trump administration 3758:British post offices in Morocco 3594:Postal Voting in 2020 Talk page 2343:attempted to start a discussion 2335:List of types of revenue stamps 2325:List of types of revenue stamps 2055:Nice to have confirmation from 1924:b:World_Stamp_Catalogue/Albania 1614:Proposal to delete all portals 1587:List of types of revenue stamps 1580:List of types of revenue stamps 933:Forbin 1915 worldwide catalogue 4100:about the inadequacy of using 3125:The script is mostly based on 1631:07:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC) 1517:are postal stationery with an 1381:c:Category:Postcards of Russia 1180:Please ping me when you reply. 1119:12:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC) 1092:12:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC) 982:Portals are being redesigned. 774:21:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC) 1: 3693:11:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 3661:10:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 3150:User talk:Headbomb/unreliable 3004:05:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC) 2984:07:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC) 2944:Airmails of the United States 2685:c:Category:Stamps of Zimbabwe 2278:12:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 2252:19:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 2218:15:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 1736:02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC) 1703:WikiProject Academic Journals 1603:18:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC) 1585:I am proposing rewriting the 1229:22:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC) 1190:16:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC) 1175:16:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC) 829:00:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 814:23:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 708:14:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC) 696:05:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC) 680:15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC) 656:14:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC) 639:11:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC) 589:13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC) 4345:Knowledge:Content assessment 4294:22:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 4270:22:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 4254:these philatelist categories 4208:20:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 4151:I have translated the use of 4144:20:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC) 4081:07:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC) 4063:05:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC) 3834:Thanks, I've moved them. -- 3458:American Topical Association 2963:23:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC) 2903:Talk:Postal_village#Accuracy 2513:18:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC) 2165:09:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC) 2135:million scientific papers. 2017:standard forms like this one 1666:04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 902:Revenue stamps of Yugoslavia 612:22:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC) 556:23:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC) 530:18:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC) 512:20:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC) 386:) 20:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 4603:02:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 4488:looks quite sparse but the 4110:for philatelists. Is using 4045:using "Great Britain", and 4036:10:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC) 4019:09:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC) 3929:17:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC) 3912:14:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC) 3897:13:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 3868:09:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 3844:10:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 3830:09:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 3816:09:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 3770:09:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 3752:09:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 3738:09:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 3711:07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 3637:14:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC) 3614:01:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 2938:09:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC) 2915:04:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC) 2606:https://www.stampworld.com/ 2487:23:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC) 2472:Black Heritage pillar boxes 2467:21:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC) 2145:19:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC) 2115:07:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC) 2069:23:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC) 2033:23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC) 2000:06:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC) 1978:18:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 1944:15:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 1918:13:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 1893:12:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 1871:11:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 1856:10:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 1837:09:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 1572:09:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC) 1558:I would categorise them as 1553:20:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC) 1530:mailing without an envelope 1138:13:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC) 909:Revenue stamps of Argentina 488:08:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 470:Mailbox category discussion 178:Category:Philatelic museums 4618: 4567:03:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 4405:20:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC) 4327:11:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC) 3858:" (over the redirect). -- 3193:16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC) 3185:MediaWiki message delivery 3035: 3027:16:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC) 2289:Discussions on the commons 2192:Washington–Franklin Issues 1827:I'll propose it formally. 1728:MediaWiki message delivery 1501:03:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC) 1483:16:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC) 1468:05:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC) 1288:03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC) 1161:, is described as having " 897:Revenue stamps of Thailand 887:Revenue stamps of Portugal 565:Postal privatisation bills 465:06:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC) 260:non-free policy guidelines 170:List of philatelic museums 106:23:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC) 4499:Postal history of Ireland 4495:Postage stamps of Ireland 4093:Infobox for philatelists? 3571:00:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC) 3543:15:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC) 3529:01:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC) 3501:17:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC) 3486:14:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC) 3471:14:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC) 2874:07:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC) 2810:Lancaster House Agreement 2585:22:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC) 2536:16:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC) 2438:14:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC) 2424:22:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC) 2386:22:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC) 2370:10:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC) 1741:Proposal of a new project 1442:20:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC) 1432:Thanks for your help! -- 1403:18:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC) 1367:20:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC) 1251:09:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC) 1241:discusses this proposal. 1078:We now have the category 877:Revenue stamps of Germany 862:Revenue stamps of Belgium 570:This topic was merged to 190:19:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 160:Postal/philatelic museums 4532:18:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 4515:17:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 4476:13:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 4464:postal history of France 4445:19:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 4393:|QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom 4373:WikiProject banner shell 4360:WikiProject banner shell 4124:to this conversation. — 3452:14:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC) 3437:13:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC) 3422:19:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC) 3394:20:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC) 3375:Indeed, one wonders how 3371:16:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC) 3352:15:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC) 3329:14:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC) 3293:02:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC) 3277:14:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC) 3248:01:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC) 3231:01:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC) 3146:User:Headbomb/unreliable 3066:. Accessed 2020-02-14. ( 3038:User:Headbomb/unreliable 2853:09:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC) 2837:23:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 2798:22:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 2784:22:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 2737:21:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 2722:21:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 2697:13:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 2662:11:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 2641:11:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 2618:06:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 2320:17:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 2310:Your opinions may help. 1421:suitable for Knowledge). 1328:04:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC) 1069:07:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 963:20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC) 949:20:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC) 926:20:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC) 913:Revenue stamps of Canada 872:Revenue stamps of France 857:Revenue stamps of Brazil 738:10:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 434:10:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 399:20:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 362:20:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 347:20:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 311:20:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 276:14:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 249:12:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 230:00:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 94:World Stamp Show-NY 2016 4041:themselves. So we have 3215:Mail delivery by animal 2827:compliant). Regards, -- 2562:14:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 2455:Revenue stamps of Malta 2057:User:Whatamidoing (WMF) 2021:d:Wikidata:Project chat 1578:Proposal for rewriting 1298:I notice that template 1124:This was moved renamed 1054:WikiProject's talk page 1025:On April 8th, 2018, an 994:Transclude lead excerpt 892:Revenue stamps of Spain 867:Revenue stamps of China 835:Revenue stamps articles 716:Liechtenstein stamp FFD 174:Category:Postal museums 152:11:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC) 140:Wreck and Crash Society 126:18:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC) 92:Is anyone going to the 4426:does the same for the 3206: 3088:. Accessed 2020-02-14. 842:Revenue stamps of Fiji 134:I'll either be at the 4349:Village pump proposal 4098:See this conversation 3589:Postal service crisis 3205: 3140:Do note that this is 2772:non-free media policy 2626:WADP Numbering System 2347:new draft of the list 2007:, I saw your note at 1900:World Stamp Catalogue 1617:The discussion is at 1379:is a sub-category of 1333:Postcards of the USSR 1313:WikiProject Philately 1196:Scott catalogue issue 819:Thanks, very useful. 414:Puerto Rico on stamps 42:of past discussions. 4248:template it come to 3675:which are a form of 3621:conflict of interest 3309:may be of interest. 2762:copyright rule. See 2628:is also useful. See 2300:concerns a page move 2088:). I know you write 1487:I think I found it, 1282:– Sent on behalf of 1276:template's talk page 1268:old, out-of-date one 1263:Newsletter directory 1234:POD & USPS merge 457:TheVirginiaHistorian 426:TheVirginiaHistorian 321:Likely photographer? 280:The USPS specifies: 4572:Proposed deletion: 3408:, maybe a topic at 2494:Cancellation (mail) 1776:Why a new project? 973:Portals WikiProject 907:Many articles like 648:is needed. Thanks. 617:Name change request 195:Completely confused 3722:1981 commemorative 3619:This editor has a 3207: 3048:predatory journals 3044:unreliable sources 2901:See discussion at 2542:Barefoot Catalogue 2492:Requested move of 2137:Whatamidoing (WMF) 2076:Whatamidoing (WMF) 2025:Whatamidoing (WMF) 2013:User:Jim.henderson 1718:Sent on behalf of 1155:Charles M. Russell 1047:newsletter archive 4584:List of PHQ cards 4574:List of PHQ cards 4258:John Walter Scott 4165:John Walter Scott 4047:original research 3973:if they so wish. 3219:Talk:Dogsled mail 3081:Article of things 3060:Article of things 2281: 1751:perforation gauge 1450:Airmail postcards 1064:The Transhumanist 760:Talk:Pitney Bowes 598:Are you aware of 327:John Walter Scott 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4609: 4601: 4565: 4524:Onceaphilatelist 4482:Onceaphilatelist 4468:Onceaphilatelist 4422:section and the 4394: 4390: 4384: 4377: 4371: 4364: 4358: 4354: 4283: 4277: 4238: 4232: 4228: 4224:Infobox engineer 4222: 4197: 4195: 4186: 4180: 4176: 4170: 4162: 4158:infobox engineer 4156: 4153: 4133: 4131: 4119: 4115:Infobox engineer 4113: 4109: 4105:Infobox engineer 4103: 4053:does not apply? 4043:reliable sources 3985:Northern Ireland 3963:British citizens 3778:..." articles ( 3718:Giant's Causeway 3677:definitive stamp 3349: 3347: 3326: 3317: 3242: 3182: 3177: 3121: 3115: 3111: 3105: 3101: 3095: 3083: 3069: 2982: 2975:Portal:Philately 2969:Portal:Philately 2826: 2820: 2757: 2751: 2682: 2676: 2596: 2592: 2591: 2567:A merge proposal 2448:Any help needed? 2306:is self evident. 2276: 2237:Auberge d'Italie 2079: 1988: 1714: 1708: 1700: 1694: 1690: 1677:infobox requests 1654:this Google form 1609:Portal:Philately 1456:airmail postcard 1317: 1311: 1307: 1301: 1294:Tagging articles 1227: 1218: 1214: 1128:a few days ago. 1067: 998: 992: 450: 449: 225: 216: 210: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4617: 4616: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4597: 4577: 4561: 4545: 4543:- input invited 4452: 4424:second of which 4412: 4388: 4382: 4375: 4369: 4362: 4356: 4341: 4281: 4275: 4236: 4230: 4226: 4220: 4191: 4189: 4184: 4178: 4174: 4168: 4160: 4154: 4149: 4127: 4125: 4117: 4111: 4107: 4101: 4095: 3969:entitled to be 3937: 3935:The geopolitics 3645: 3578: 3556: 3345: 3343: 3336: 3320: 3311: 3304: 3256: 3238: 3200: 3198:Merger proposal 3180: 3156: 3119: 3113: 3109: 3103: 3099: 3093: 3079: 3067: 3040: 3034: 3011: 2991: 2978: 2972: 2947: 2922: 2899: 2824: 2818: 2755: 2749: 2680: 2674: 2602: 2589: 2587: 2569: 2546: 2544:up for deletion 2520: 2497: 2474: 2459:No Great Shaker 2450: 2327: 2291: 2073: 1982: 1905:stamp catalogue 1795:philately is a 1743: 1712: 1706: 1698: 1696:infobox journal 1692: 1684: 1673: 1638: 1612: 1583: 1519:imprinted stamp 1511: 1452: 1335: 1315: 1309: 1305: 1299: 1296: 1258: 1236: 1216: 1210: 1209: 1198: 1159:Olaf C. Seltzer 1148: 1099: 1076: 1060: 1023: 996: 990: 976: 837: 781: 745: 718: 666: 619: 596: 568: 495: 472: 447: 444: 406: 376:John D. Heywood 372:John B. Heywood 369: 323: 223: 214: 212:Stamp_rationale 208: 197: 162: 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4615: 4613: 4576: 4570: 4555: 4554: 4544: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4520: 4490:dewiki article 4451: 4448: 4416:first of which 4411: 4408: 4340: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4279:Infobox person 4250:just under 990 4239:as I did with 4234:Infobox person 4182:Infobox person 4172:Infobox person 4094: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4004: 4003: 3978: 3977: 3971:Irish citizens 3956: 3955: 3936: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3644: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3577: 3574: 3555: 3554:closed as keep 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3402: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3346:Rhododendrites 3335: 3332: 3303: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3255: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3199: 3196: 3183:Delivered by: 3090: 3089: 3086:Deprecated.com 3072: 3071: 3064:Deprecated.com 3033: 3030: 3010: 3007: 2990: 2987: 2971: 2966: 2946: 2941: 2921: 2918: 2898: 2896:postal village 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2709: 2601: 2600:stampworld.com 2598: 2568: 2565: 2545: 2539: 2519: 2516: 2496: 2490: 2473: 2470: 2449: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2396: 2389: 2388: 2331:revenue stamps 2326: 2323: 2308: 2307: 2301: 2290: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2266:All the best: 2264: 2261: 2258: 2254: 2240: 2228: 2221: 2220: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2196: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2132: 2125:es:Jimmy Wales 2103: 2100: 2093: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1931: 1927: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1820: 1819: 1816: 1813: 1810: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1793: 1790: 1787: 1781: 1742: 1739: 1672: 1669: 1637: 1634: 1611: 1606: 1582: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1510: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1451: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1422: 1406: 1405: 1355: 1354: 1347: 1334: 1331: 1295: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1257: 1254: 1235: 1232: 1197: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1151:Philip G. Cole 1147: 1145:Philip G. Cole 1142: 1141: 1140: 1098: 1095: 1075: 1072: 1022: 1019: 975: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 905: 904: 899: 894: 889: 884: 879: 874: 869: 864: 859: 836: 833: 832: 831: 780: 779:Italian stamps 777: 744: 741: 717: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 665: 660: 659: 658: 618: 615: 595: 592: 567: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 533: 532: 514: 494: 491: 471: 468: 443: 439:Discussion at 437: 422:Inverted Jenny 405: 404:USPS image use 402: 368: 365: 322: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 298: 297: 296: 289: 252: 251: 196: 193: 161: 158: 157: 156: 155: 154: 129: 128: 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4614: 4605: 4604: 4600: 4594: 4591: 4589: 4585: 4582:Our article, 4580: 4575: 4571: 4569: 4568: 4564: 4558: 4553: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4542: 4539: 4533: 4529: 4525: 4521: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4491: 4487: 4483: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4457: 4449: 4447: 4446: 4442: 4438: 4432: 4429: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4409: 4407: 4406: 4402: 4398: 4387: 4379: 4374: 4366: 4361: 4355:parameter to 4350: 4346: 4338: 4328: 4324: 4320: 4316: 4312: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4295: 4291: 4287: 4280: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4246: 4242: 4235: 4225: 4218: 4214: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4196: 4194: 4183: 4173: 4166: 4159: 4152: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4141: 4137: 4132: 4130: 4123: 4116: 4106: 4099: 4092: 4082: 4078: 4074: 4070: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4051:Knowledge:NOR 4048: 4044: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4008: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3998: 3994: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3950: 3946: 3942: 3941:Great Britain 3934: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3917: 3913: 3909: 3905: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3894: 3890: 3885: 3884: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3845: 3841: 3837: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3669: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3601: 3599: 3595: 3590: 3585: 3583: 3575: 3573: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3553: 3550: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3459: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3378: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3348: 3341: 3333: 3331: 3330: 3327: 3325: 3324: 3318: 3316: 3315: 3308: 3302: 3299:2nd AfD for 3298: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3261: 3253: 3249: 3246: 3243: 3241: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3204: 3197: 3195: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3178: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3159: 3153: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3138: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3127:WP:RSPSOURCES 3123: 3118: 3108: 3098: 3087: 3082: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3039: 3031: 3029: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3008: 3006: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2988: 2986: 2985: 2981: 2980:North America 2976: 2970: 2967: 2965: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2945: 2942: 2940: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2919: 2917: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2897: 2893: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2823: 2816: 2811: 2807: 2804: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2754: 2747: 2743: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2710: 2707: 2703: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2679: 2672: 2668: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2631: 2627: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2599: 2597: 2595: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2566: 2564: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2543: 2540: 2538: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2528:Charlesjsharp 2525: 2518:New monograph 2517: 2515: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2495: 2491: 2489: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2471: 2469: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2447: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2397: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2354: 2350: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2324: 2322: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2305: 2302: 2299: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2288: 2279: 2274: 2273: 2270: 2265: 2262: 2259: 2255: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2238: 2234: 2229: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2197: 2193: 2188: 2187: 2185: 2180: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2153: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2133: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2101: 2098: 2094: 2091: 2087: 2086:large dragons 2083: 2077: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2061:Jim.henderson 2058: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1986: 1985:Jim.henderson 1981: 1980: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1970:Jim.henderson 1967: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1932: 1928: 1925: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1906: 1901: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1824: 1817: 1814: 1811: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1798: 1794: 1791: 1788: 1785: 1784: 1782: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1774: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1747: 1740: 1738: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1716: 1711: 1710:starbox begin 1704: 1697: 1689:|Trialpears}} 1688: 1682: 1678: 1670: 1668: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1649: 1647: 1643: 1635: 1633: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1610: 1607: 1605: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1535:Well, I have 1533: 1531: 1527: 1522: 1520: 1516: 1508: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1449: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1426: 1423: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1391: 1387: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1351: 1348: 1345: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1332: 1330: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1314: 1304: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1255: 1253: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1233: 1231: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1217:Pigsonthewing 1213: 1207: 1203: 1202:five year old 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1146: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1096: 1094: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1074:Images needed 1073: 1071: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1057: 1055: 1050: 1048: 1043: 1040: 1037: 1035: 1030: 1028: 1020: 1018: 1016: 1015: 1009: 1007: 1006: 1000: 995: 986: 983: 980: 974: 970: 964: 960: 956: 952: 951: 950: 946: 942: 938: 934: 930: 929: 928: 927: 923: 919: 914: 910: 903: 900: 898: 895: 893: 890: 888: 885: 883: 880: 878: 875: 873: 870: 868: 865: 863: 860: 858: 855: 854: 853: 851: 847: 843: 834: 830: 826: 822: 818: 817: 816: 815: 811: 807: 803: 802:this category 799: 795: 791: 786: 778: 776: 775: 771: 767: 762: 761: 756: 755: 750: 747:On behalf of 742: 740: 739: 735: 731: 727: 722: 715: 709: 706: 704: 699: 698: 697: 693: 689: 684: 683: 682: 681: 678: 676: 671: 664: 661: 657: 654: 652: 647: 643: 642: 641: 640: 636: 632: 628: 624: 616: 614: 613: 609: 605: 601: 593: 591: 590: 586: 582: 578: 573: 566: 563: 557: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 536: 535: 534: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 513: 509: 505: 501: 497: 496: 492: 490: 489: 485: 481: 477: 469: 467: 466: 462: 458: 454: 442: 438: 436: 435: 431: 427: 423: 419: 418:WP:NOTABILITY 415: 411: 403: 401: 400: 396: 392: 388: 385: 381: 377: 373: 366: 364: 363: 359: 355: 349: 348: 344: 340: 336: 332: 328: 320: 312: 308: 304: 299: 294: 290: 288: 285: 284: 283: 279: 278: 277: 273: 269: 265: 264:WP:NFC#Images 261: 256: 255: 254: 253: 250: 246: 242: 238: 234: 233: 232: 231: 228: 226: 220: 213: 206: 202: 194: 192: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 167: 166:Postal museum 159: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 136:Postal Museum 133: 132: 131: 130: 127: 123: 119: 115: 110: 109: 108: 107: 103: 99: 95: 88:New York 2016 87: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4595: 4592: 4581: 4578: 4559: 4556: 4546: 4453: 4433: 4427: 4419: 4413: 4386:WPBannerMeta 4380: 4367: 4342: 4217:User:Wikited 4192: 4128: 4096: 4005: 3980: 3979: 3966: 3958: 3957: 3938: 3803: 3800:...2020–2029 3796:...2010–2019 3792:...2000-2009 3788:...1990–1999 3784:...1980–1989 3780:...1970–1979 3775: 3680: 3667: 3646: 3602: 3598:my user page 3588: 3586: 3579: 3557: 3358: 3337: 3322: 3321: 3313: 3312: 3305: 3257: 3239: 3211:Dogsled mail 3208: 3179: 3154: 3141: 3139: 3135:WP:CITEWATCH 3124: 3107:cite journal 3091: 3085: 3078:John Smith " 3073: 3063: 3058:John Smith " 3041: 3012: 2992: 2973: 2948: 2923: 2900: 2894:Issues with 2767: 2603: 2593: 2570: 2547: 2521: 2498: 2475: 2451: 2400: 2355: 2351: 2328: 2309: 2292: 2267: 2151: 2120: 2089: 2085: 2081: 1825: 1821: 1804: 1796: 1775: 1770: 1769:(penny...), 1766: 1763:Magyar posta 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1748: 1744: 1717: 1674: 1650: 1639: 1623:Voceditenore 1616: 1613: 1584: 1540: 1534: 1529: 1523: 1518: 1515:Postal cards 1512: 1454:I've got an 1453: 1424: 1418: 1356: 1349: 1336: 1297: 1261: 1259: 1237: 1225:Andy's edits 1221:Talk to Andy 1212:Andy Mabbett 1201: 1199: 1149: 1100: 1097:Naming issue 1077: 1062: 1059:Thank you. 1058: 1051: 1044: 1041: 1038: 1031: 1024: 1012: 1010: 1003: 1001: 987: 984: 981: 977: 906: 838: 782: 766:Inkian Jason 758: 752: 749:Pitney Bowes 746: 719: 701: 673: 667: 649: 620: 597: 569: 473: 445: 407: 370: 350: 334: 330: 324: 291: 286: 281: 236: 218: 198: 163: 91: 78: 43: 37: 4486:frwiki page 4069:Daveosaurus 4055:Daveosaurus 4028:Philafrenzy 3921:Philafrenzy 3889:Daveosaurus 3822:Philafrenzy 3762:Philafrenzy 3730:Philafrenzy 3699:Philafrenzy 3685:Philafrenzy 3521:Xwejnusgozo 3036:Main page: 3019:Gone Postal 2864:Regards, -- 2858:Philafrenzy 2845:Philafrenzy 2822:PD-Zimbabwe 2806:Philafrenzy 2790:Philafrenzy 2753:PD-Zimbabwe 2742:Philafrenzy 2729:Philafrenzy 2416:Xwejnusgozo 2362:Xwejnusgozo 2244:Xwejnusgozo 1885:Philafrenzy 1848:Philafrenzy 1595:Xwejnusgozo 1344:one example 1318:tagging. -- 1272:WikiSpecies 1105:article at 1032:There's an 955:Philafrenzy 941:Xwejnusgozo 918:Xwejnusgozo 821:Philafrenzy 688:Daveosaurus 670:Philafrenzy 205:Secretariat 182:Xwejnusgozo 36:This is an 4503:draft page 4311:Archer1234 4213:Archer1234 4193:Archer1234 4129:Archer1234 3240:CaptainEek 2866:Goldsztajn 2829:Goldsztajn 2746:Goldsztajn 2714:Goldsztajn 2667:Goldsztajn 2654:Goldsztajn 2610:Goldsztajn 2272:Farmbrough 1720:Trialpears 1642:WP 1.0 Bot 1021:Background 850:Seychelles 672:. Thanks. 572:Japan Post 219:as well as 79:Archive 10 4507:ww2censor 4319:ww2censor 4286:ww2censor 4262:ww2censor 4122:TimeTreks 3904:ww2censor 3806:...". -- 3726:these too 3681:primarily 3679:intended 3629:ww2censor 2955:ww2censor 2930:ww2censor 2803:ww2censor 2776:ww2censor 2702:Ww2censor 2689:ww2censor 2646:Ww2censor 2633:ww2censor 2577:ww2censor 2554:ww2censor 2505:ww2censor 2479:ww2censor 2430:ww2censor 2378:ww2censor 2312:ww2censor 2184:StampData 1910:ww2censor 1773:, etc.). 1564:ww2censor 1560:postcards 1475:ww2censor 1395:ww2censor 1243:ww2censor 1204:issue at 1182:Zigzig20s 1167:Zigzig20s 1130:ww2censor 1111:ww2censor 1084:ww2censor 806:ww2censor 730:ww2censor 631:ww2censor 604:ww2censor 581:ww2censor 548:ww2censor 480:ww2censor 268:ww2censor 224:Montanabw 144:ww2censor 98:ww2censor 73:Archive 9 68:Archive 8 60:Archive 5 4557:Thanks, 4397:Aymatth2 4243:. I did 4241:this one 3993:Scotland 3604:Thanks! 3158:Headbomb 3131:WP:NPPSG 3097:cite web 2678:PD-UKGov 2257:do-able. 2233:George V 2157:Lmaltier 2107:Lmaltier 2005:Lmaltier 1992:Lmaltier 1966:Wikidata 1936:Lmaltier 1863:Lmaltier 1829:Lmaltier 1658:Walkerma 1646:web tool 1526:postcard 1284:Headbomb 785:PD-Italy 544:Jax 0677 522:Jax 0677 504:Jax 0677 352:Thanks. 4588:WP:PROD 4458:here : 4353:|class= 4256:. Your 4167:to use 4073:DeFacto 4011:DeFacto 3989:England 3949:Ireland 3860:DeFacto 3836:DeFacto 3808:DeFacto 3744:DeFacto 3703:DeFacto 3653:DeFacto 3563:CT55555 3478:CT55555 3444:CT55555 3414:CT55555 3361:. Bw -- 3223:Annwfwn 2989:symbols 2082:exactly 2009:WP:VPIL 1320:Doncram 391:Collect 380:Collect 354:Collect 339:Collect 303:Collect 241:Collect 118:Ecphora 39:archive 4391:a new 4007:Here's 3999:, is. 3995:, and 3854:" to " 3798:, and 3724:, and 3625:WP:TPW 3406:WP:RFC 3363:Orland 3359:trivia 2907:Mangoe 1844:France 1726:) via 1541:do not 1539:which 1353:card.) 1260:A new 646:WP:CON 331:labels 4599:A. B. 4563:A. B. 3997:Wales 3850:And " 3720:on a 2996:kwami 2768:might 2401:every 2121:parts 1771:Lundy 1545:Wesha 1537:these 1493:Wesha 1460:Wesha 1434:Wesha 1373:Wesha 1359:Wesha 367:Query 16:< 4528:talk 4511:talk 4472:talk 4441:talk 4401:talk 4323:talk 4290:talk 4266:talk 4077:talk 4059:talk 4032:talk 4015:talk 3981:None 3967:also 3925:talk 3908:talk 3893:talk 3864:talk 3840:talk 3826:talk 3812:talk 3766:talk 3748:talk 3734:talk 3707:talk 3689:talk 3668:only 3657:talk 3633:talk 3610:talk 3567:talk 3539:talk 3535:Lupe 3525:talk 3497:talk 3493:Stan 3482:talk 3467:talk 3463:Stan 3456:The 3448:talk 3433:talk 3429:Stan 3418:talk 3410:WT:N 3390:talk 3386:Stan 3367:talk 3289:talk 3285:Lupe 3273:talk 3269:Stan 3227:talk 3189:talk 3133:and 3112:and 3046:and 3023:talk 3000:talk 2959:talk 2934:talk 2911:talk 2870:talk 2849:talk 2833:talk 2794:talk 2780:talk 2760:URAA 2733:talk 2718:talk 2693:talk 2658:talk 2637:talk 2614:talk 2594:Done 2581:talk 2558:talk 2532:talk 2509:talk 2483:talk 2463:talk 2434:talk 2420:talk 2382:talk 2366:talk 2360:. -- 2316:talk 2269:Rich 2248:talk 2214:talk 2210:Stan 2206:CDDB 2161:talk 2141:talk 2111:talk 2065:talk 2029:talk 1996:talk 1974:talk 1940:talk 1914:talk 1889:talk 1867:talk 1852:talk 1833:talk 1797:very 1759:CCCP 1732:talk 1724:talk 1701:for 1687:ping 1662:talk 1627:talk 1599:talk 1593:. -- 1591:here 1568:talk 1549:talk 1497:talk 1479:talk 1464:talk 1438:talk 1399:talk 1363:talk 1350:Some 1324:talk 1247:talk 1186:talk 1171:talk 1157:and 1134:talk 1115:talk 1088:talk 1014:here 1005:here 959:talk 945:talk 935:and 922:talk 911:and 848:and 846:Oman 825:talk 810:talk 792:and 770:talk 754:here 734:talk 703:Jack 692:talk 675:Jack 651:Jack 635:talk 608:talk 585:talk 552:talk 526:talk 520:. -- 508:talk 502:. -- 484:talk 461:talk 430:talk 395:talk 384:talk 374:and 358:talk 343:talk 307:talk 272:talk 245:talk 201:this 186:talk 176:and 168:and 148:talk 122:talk 114:here 102:talk 4590:). 4163:at 4079:). 4017:). 3983:of 3959:All 3866:). 3842:). 3814:). 3750:). 3709:). 3659:). 3600:. 3350:\\ 3314:Pam 3155:- 3117:doi 2235:or 2152:all 1524:"A 1491:-- 1419:are 1219:); 625:at 542:by 455:. 408:At 335:may 325:On 138:or 4560:-- 4530:) 4513:) 4474:) 4443:) 4403:) 4389:}} 4383:{{ 4376:}} 4370:{{ 4363:}} 4357:{{ 4325:) 4292:) 4282:}} 4276:{{ 4268:) 4237:}} 4231:{{ 4227:}} 4221:{{ 4206:) 4185:}} 4179:{{ 4175:}} 4169:{{ 4161:}} 4155:{{ 4142:) 4118:}} 4112:{{ 4108:}} 4102:{{ 4061:) 4034:) 3991:, 3927:) 3910:) 3895:) 3828:) 3794:, 3790:, 3786:, 3782:, 3768:) 3736:) 3728:. 3691:) 3635:) 3612:) 3569:) 3541:) 3527:) 3499:) 3484:) 3469:) 3450:) 3435:) 3420:) 3392:) 3369:) 3291:) 3283:-- 3275:) 3229:) 3221:-- 3191:) 3172:· 3168:· 3164:· 3152:. 3129:, 3122:. 3120:}} 3114:{{ 3110:}} 3104:{{ 3102:, 3100:}} 3094:{{ 3084:" 3062:" 3025:) 3002:) 2961:) 2936:) 2928:. 2913:) 2905:. 2872:) 2851:) 2835:) 2825:}} 2819:{{ 2796:) 2782:) 2774:. 2756:}} 2750:{{ 2735:) 2720:) 2695:) 2687:. 2681:}} 2675:{{ 2660:) 2639:) 2616:) 2583:) 2575:. 2560:) 2552:? 2534:) 2526:. 2511:) 2485:) 2465:) 2436:) 2422:) 2384:) 2368:) 2318:) 2250:) 2216:) 2163:) 2143:) 2113:) 2067:) 2031:) 1998:) 1976:) 1942:) 1916:) 1891:) 1869:) 1854:) 1835:) 1765:, 1761:, 1757:, 1755:CF 1734:) 1713:}} 1707:{{ 1699:}} 1693:{{ 1685:{{ 1664:) 1629:) 1621:. 1601:) 1570:) 1551:) 1532:" 1499:) 1481:) 1466:) 1440:) 1401:) 1375:: 1365:) 1326:) 1316:}} 1310:{{ 1306:}} 1300:{{ 1286:. 1249:) 1223:; 1208:? 1188:) 1173:) 1136:) 1117:) 1090:) 1061:— 1056:. 1049:. 1036:. 1008:. 999:. 997:}} 991:{{ 961:) 947:) 924:) 916:-- 844:, 827:) 812:) 772:) 736:) 728:. 705:| 694:) 677:| 653:| 637:) 610:) 587:) 554:) 528:) 510:) 486:) 463:) 432:) 397:) 360:) 345:) 309:) 274:) 247:) 215:}} 209:{{ 188:) 180:. 150:) 124:) 104:) 64:← 4596:— 4526:( 4509:( 4470:( 4439:( 4399:( 4321:( 4288:( 4264:( 4204:c 4202:· 4200:t 4198:( 4140:c 4138:· 4136:t 4134:( 4075:( 4067:@ 4057:( 4030:( 4013:( 3939:" 3923:( 3906:( 3891:( 3862:( 3838:( 3824:( 3810:( 3764:( 3746:( 3732:( 3705:( 3697:@ 3687:( 3655:( 3631:( 3608:( 3565:( 3537:( 3523:( 3495:( 3480:( 3465:( 3446:( 3431:( 3416:( 3388:( 3365:( 3323:D 3287:( 3271:( 3245:⚓ 3225:( 3187:( 3176:} 3174:b 3170:p 3166:c 3162:t 3160:{ 3070:) 3021:( 2998:( 2957:( 2932:( 2909:( 2868:( 2847:( 2831:( 2792:( 2778:( 2744:: 2731:( 2716:( 2691:( 2656:( 2635:( 2612:( 2579:( 2556:( 2530:( 2507:( 2481:( 2461:( 2432:( 2418:( 2380:( 2364:( 2314:( 2280:. 2246:( 2212:( 2159:( 2139:( 2109:( 2078:: 2074:@ 2063:( 2027:( 1994:( 1987:: 1983:@ 1972:( 1938:( 1912:( 1887:( 1865:( 1850:( 1831:( 1767:d 1730:( 1722:( 1660:( 1625:( 1597:( 1566:( 1547:( 1513:" 1495:( 1477:( 1462:( 1436:( 1397:( 1361:( 1322:( 1245:( 1215:( 1184:( 1169:( 1132:( 1113:( 1086:( 957:( 943:( 920:( 840:( 823:( 808:( 768:( 732:( 690:( 633:( 606:( 583:( 550:( 524:( 506:( 482:( 459:( 428:( 393:( 382:( 356:( 341:( 305:( 270:( 243:( 184:( 146:( 120:( 100:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 10 - Knowledge

Index