Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 8

676:

more work done on them, so in the meantime I'm going to work on existing articles that haven't had much work done on them. I've noticed a few oddities that will have to be worked out, for example the Papua New Guinea list includes not only all its constituent parts, but also those of West New Guinea (which shouldn't be included with Papua New Guinea at all, but would belong in a separate article). Otherwise I've also noticed that many recent issues of stamps feature persons whose notability is minimal - for example, the Fiji series showing its entire rugby sevens team; and modern developments such as personalised stamps and "customer advertising labels". New Zealand is also going to be a major headache; as well as NZ Post there are several independent postal providers operating in the country, some of which issue their own stamps and of which there are few, if any, catalogues.

2856:. Oldtimers may remember my occasional mutterings about how one might do a stamp catalogue wiki-style, well I finally went for it myself! The site is already seeded with data about 150,000+ stamp types that I've personally typed in over the past twenty years, plus about 6,000 images, many of which will seem familiar because I pulled them from Commons. :-) The catalogue is member-editable, has change tracking, annotations, etc, plus there is stamp-specific depth, such as knowledge about denominations, currencies, colors, overprints, and so forth. It's also all-new code, so things are still a little shaky ahem, but it's at the point where it's more useful to get feedback from other people than to tinker in private. Hope to see some of you there! (And yes, this is a shameless plug for an external website, but I imagine it's of more than average interest to project members.) 3605:

is not a valid way of organising them, but I do accept I went too far in not retaining some of the "Postage stamps of" categories below the "Philately of" higher category. We have a Philately category so why not a "Philately by country" structure? Nothing else brings all of the articles about the philately of a particular country together in one place, including collectors who specialised in a particular country, the postage and revenue stamps of that country, its postal history and notable individual stamps, catalogues and collecting societies. This is a Philately project for a reason and not a postage stamp or postal history project. Philately is the correct term even if it is not as well known a word as it should be. It encompasses much, much more than just postage stamps. That is what I am trying to achieve even if my implementation was faulty! Thanks.

1910:

enough for its own Knowledge article should have a recognisable descriptive name - for example, I doubt that "United States SG A548b" would mean much to Americans reading this, but "Inverted Jenny" just might. On the subject of lists of stamps with catalogue numbers: In my work on lists of people I've avoided using catalogue numbers entirely; referencing to year of issue and page in a specific edition instead. While that is little less restrictive than using numbers from a single catalogue, it at least gives a year reference that someone with another publisher's catalogue can use. And as for other lists on stamps - fish, etc. - there are actually published catalogues of fish, etc. on stamps available. (Stanley Gibbons' entry in that category is a volume entitled "Collect Fish on Stamps").

1723:

form of articles or commentary." (I note that literally the permission uses "and" for each requirement, but that makes no sense; one cannot simultaneously use Scott numbers in an ad to sell stamps and for editorial purposes in articles; apparently "or" was meant.) But even if Scott did not expressly grant permission, as it apparently has done, it would clearly be fair use. It is no different than citing in an article the catalog number of a book, painting or object in a published catalog of a museum collection, which is routinely done. I am not aware that Scott or any other publisher has ever complained about such a use. This is not to say that wholesale use of Scott numbers that effectively duplicates a catlog is permitted. In that regard, I agree that

973:. The application of that change is an easy one for this discussion. If reliable sources discuss members of a group (such as Notable Iranians on Stamps for example) as a group then the list topic (Iranians on Stamps) would be considered notable. Inclusion of individual stamps in the list would be dependent on the nature of the group as discussed by sources and inclusion criteria. The key change for lists (not necessarily all lists) is that the list topic should have been discussed by reliable sources as a group. That discussion does not require discussion of 100% of the members of the group, but it does require that the grouping is being discussed, not just a random discussion of its members. Hope this helps -- 3445:

stamp articles together under the higher "Philately of" categories, both can be correct I think. Would that address your concerns? There do seem to be significant benefits to a "Philately by country" structure as it enables all philatelic articles about a particular country to fall into one category for the first time - Just look at Germany for instance. We now have 37 articles that naturally go together with obvious benefits to users and which were previously in diverse categories. I agree Philately is not as well known a word as it might be but it is the right word for this area. That's why this is a philately project not a stamp collecting or postage stamp project.

4037:

would be to get people registered on Knowledge on that day, and make their first edit on a philatelic topic using information gathered from the BL collections on that day. A bit ambitious perhaps but I think it should be made clear that it is a hands-on training event where people will be learning, not a cheese and wine party with a few stamps thrown in or a lecture. The age profile of the typical collector is fairly high, but there are some very capable people out there too. The Royal, for instance, has some major IT projects ongoing. I would be happy to attend such an event either as a delegate or on the Wiki side as an unofficial trainer/helper.

3524:

only to category blanking which was not very extensive and in most cases involved categories which had few members and should probably not have been created in the first place. Or are you opposing the concept of a "Philately by country" structure as I think the utility of that speaks for itself? Are you aware that most of these articles were just in an A-Z "Postage stamps by country" category with an almost mirror "Postal history of" parallel listing with no links to other articles covering the same area? Please clarify how far you are asking me to go. I have been bold and improved the encyclopaedia's coverage of this area significantly. Thanks.

1600:

what order etc. There is a get out however as indicated in the Scott notice quoted above (e), and which I would think also goes for Gibbons, in that the use of the numbers for articles or commentary is allowed, and I think that would cover Knowledge articles. The wholesale use of numbers in articles in list form is probably not acceptable, although if they had a problem with it I think we would have heard from them. In practice, the catalogue producers turn a blind eye to a certain amount of infringement as it suits their purposes to have their numbering system promoted, although they would never admit it.

3749:

be very helpful for recommending source literature and maybe providing access to them; it's not really good to base our overviews on standard stamp catalogs, as they lack essential background, but the philatelic literature that is the real source of stamp info is often hard to come by. It would also be good to have authoritative images of the more-common stamps; many of those overview articles still only have one or two illustrations scanned from my own collection years ago, and I can't always vouch for those items' authenticity, ahem. :-)

3955:

someone will write a stub, be vaguely aware there is a book/article they can't get hold of, leave it there. If there's some way of saying "I want to write on ---, please help me get the sources" and then getting the resources to them, we might be able to help that particular aspect of content creation. Doing it responsively to requests makes it likely the material will be directly used, & thus avoids the effort (and, as you say, cost) of digitising material that's not needed. I'm wondering if something like a focused version of

2717: 4217: 3255:"philatelic collectibles", another on "entities", and third on "postal history" (wherever these apply, or suitable ones for that country) may be more than enough and yet achieve what you basically desire. You may also consider the setting of arbitrary limits which will guide us in the creation of categories. Say, a mimimum of ten articles required for a category and categories to be created only once the topmost category exceeds thirty or whatever is decided by consensus. 3986:

evaluate the feasibility of fulfilling them in time, money, copyright issues etc. One other option is simply to bulk upload BL images of philatelic items to commons under a suitable licence, if you can get them to agree. These would eventually feed through into articles. Thirdly, there is the option of a philatelic editathon/focus group/meetup in the department etc that might generate some ideas, but that is realistically only suitable for people that can get to London.

31: 460:

than anything and certainly they have the scope to be substantial articles, particularly India where there are thousands of stamps if you include the states. Even tiny Bahrain could command a decent article in time. I am not proposing the creation of hundreds of almost empty stubs but there certainly is enough material to create quite a lot of good articles. I think there is a consensus here on how to proceed in this area.

4463:, and of course that was rapidly overtaken by events! As a result, anything pre-1920 will simply be "Ireland", no distinction, as with your 1904 example. I suspect "Northern Ireland" here means this physical copy of the die was held in Ulster somewhere and inherited by the NI Revenue Service post-1922; they then kept issuing the same stamps until 1928, which I am guessing is the period we had overprinting. 2384: 3861:

mainly UK and US ones. Active philatelists know where the natural break points are in countries and what the important series are, and also what are the individual items of note. You wouldn't believe how much there is to know about philately, how many books have been written and how many man hours have been put it. Ask David Beech or check their personal library in the department - that's nothing.

1687:

geographical locations tend use different catalogues that use different numbering systems the use of a description would likely be more useful to readers. Besides which, Scott numbers can be considered to be US-centric to the exclusion of other catalogue numbers. It may be of interest, I found Scott has defended its numbering system in at least one lawsuits (see

4487:. The NI ones were only 4 shillings so I am unsure whether there would have been multiples dies or whether the engravers were able to amend an existing die as the BL picture is for a two shilling die. I have added a few to the category and they are used up to 1953, but I may be exhausting your level of interest in dog licence stamps now, and possibly mine too. 275:

generic governmental operation. I would like to see a series of articles just on the revenue stamps of various countries, it would explain these somewhat mysterious objects that look like postage stamps but aren't. It seems sensible to keep them under this project, since they are a standard part of philately overall, and to cross-link with postal articles.

1828:

obviously Scott are going to be all over any infringement by Krause. More generally, we should avoid the use of the numbers because 1) They show bias to the US for Scott or the UK for Gibbons 2) Most readers won't have the relevant catalogue 3) The numbers can change 4) It is lazy editing because it does not include the generic characteristics of the stamp.

3076:

but that shouldn't concern us too much if that is a more correct category name. As it is, if there is an article on the telegraph stamps of India, revenue stamps of India and pre-stamp postal history of India, all of which could well justify a separate article, they are not in with the other Indian articles just because they are not about postage stamps.

715:

approaches for the less-notable that somehow made it onto stamps - one, you can design list criteria to exclude things like personalized stamps, and two, you can mention the names but just as text, with no links. It's not so effective to simply omit the names, because inevitably someone will come along, notice the apparent mistake, and add them back.

1158:, importance is not related to the state of the current article. If the Fletcher Collection is considered to be of low importance to the Philately WikiProject then it is hard to imagine any collection world-wide regardless of content that could be classed as Top, High or even Mid importance. Taking another look, it seems contradictory to rate 421:

object. However, I suspect that most will remain as stubs but hope to be proven wrong. Initially it might be more appropriate to start sections within current articles and hive off the section when it becomes large enough to exceed stub status in its own right. BTW there are already 39 separate country revenue categories on the commons at

3729:, including some unique material, and the curators are very keen on helping Wikipedians who're interested in writing about those collections, or writing about philatelic topics in general. They've done some work with Wikipedians in the past - see Philafrenzy's post above - and are familiar with what we do and how the project works. 1634:

general reader. I do not have access to a Scott catalogue, but the catalogue I use (Gibbons) allocates British Virgin Islands #18a to the "long-tailed S" variety of the 1s. on white paper and with frame superimposed extending into margins - apparently a stamp quite different to the unknown overprinted stamp listed by Scott as #18a.

3940:

alternatively from you what you can provide specifically? I assume that if we request something specific it takes curatorial time and possibly money to provide so there would need to be an undertaking from this end that we would actually use the material in an article or are we talking about some sort of bulk upload of scans/text?

1970:

Incidentally, is anyone able to set up something like "List of Philately-related deletion discussions"? I'd have completely missed this discussion if not for the heads-up. That way, articles on notable topics could be fixed instead of deleted, and obvious hoaxes could be detected which a non-philatelist might not pick up on.

940:

strange Freudian-slip-like language the stamp might be notable, but does Plate No. 2 merit its own article explaining how it differs from plate 1? Absurd, but there are reliable published sources, and there better be, as stamps printed with plate 2 are worth 200 times as much as those printed with plate 1.

398:'s suggestion not to include revenue stamp content in the "Postage stamps ..." series, but make them separate articles with "see also" links. It's unlikely that a casual reader interested in postage stamps of a country would care about revenues and even in the philatlic world these are different animals. 2555:

appearance seems more like an oddball. The 1954 article might mention that Oala was of some significance, and perhaps the son's depiction was a special favor of some sort - if we can get that tidbit, the episode and bit of bio would make a nice paragraph in the general survey of Papua New Guinea stamps.

4051:

Bingo - primarily a training/practical skills session, with a little "value added" attractiveness from being at the BL rather than a community centre somewhere; mostly new users with a couple of experienced editors to assist. I've put a note in my diary to talk to the department about this early next

3985:

I would think that the best way to proceed would be to place notices on the talk pages of every project member asking them what specific resources they need in order to complete their articles and see what you are asked for. If nothing, you have your answer. If you do get a range of requests, you can

3882:

Thanks for the notability clarification. I'm not closely familiar with our philatelic articles (yet!), and I'm hoping to make sure I get a good understanding of the way they're organised so that I don't get confused in future, hence the (slightly basic) questions - apologies if it seems a bit slow on

3604:

The statement about sub-categories has been completely removed and all deleted categories restored and all blanked re-populated (even those with almost no valid entries in the first place). I can't agree that organising every philatelic article about a particular country in a "Philately of" structure

3542:

in any wikipedian category pages - I really think the least you can do is revert yourself (ever category page with that unnecessarily bolded instruction) on such a silly request - and wait (it might take some while) until other more experienced category workers get a chance to understand what you are

3404:

to replace it with a "Philately of..." category. I see no consensus on this page for such a move. I am not convinced that it makes sense: Articles about postage stamps are mainly articles about the postage stamps themselves, not articles about the hobby of collecting these stamps (i.e., philately). I

3238:

Can I please solicit feedback on this wording and whether others feel that this wording is a good idea? I will stop using it if that is the consensus. The objective is to be able to see all of the philately articles about a country in one place for the first time and I would venture to say that it is

3210:

A group of stubs are being created for the BL Philatelic Collections as part of a project between the Library and Wikimedia UK. A full list will be published here when finished. If anyone knows these collections and can fill in the articles then please do so, otherwise they will remain as stubs until

3144:

The idea of this is that it is a flat category immediately under philately so that we can see ALL of the philatelic articles for a country in one place - no sub categories. This should be a great help in showing how well covered a country is. Ultimately, this could replace the separate postage stamps

1924:

Yes, single articles should be fine (probably even if there were a complaint from the copyright holder, as I cannot imagine it would have merit). In terms of lists, we don't use FUR for text. The decision is really going to come down to how many and for what reason. I'm afraid that fair use is pretty

1894:

Scott catalogue number in an article requires no special action, but quoting a list (say, for sake of argument, more than 5) ought to have a specific fair use rationale created for that Knowledge article (my mind boggles at having to create a FUR for a single number being used and there definitely is

1722:

I think that there is no problem in using Scott or other catalog numbers to identify stamps in an educational or scholarly article such as those on Knowledge. Philatelic journals regularly do so. The permission quoted above specifically includes "use is for editorial purposes in publications in the

1599:

It is far from BS. The catalogue numbering system of Scott and Gibbons and others is the result of decades of work and constitutes a copyrightable piece of intellectual property. They allocate the numbers based on their work classifying and describing the stamps, deciding which ones to include and in

1319:

The project would benefit by adding clear definitions of how to apply the importance ratings to avoid these issues (they have been discussed but not defined yet). As a non-philatelist I am happy to go along with your opinion, but the idea that no philatelic collection in existence could ever be rated

1209:

939:

there is a second plate. Also noted in the Brusden-White catalog is that the event commemorated by the stamp, "Responsible Government in Victoria" (whatever that is) is an error, the event being commemorated being the constitutional separation of Victoria from New South Wales. Perhaps because of this

490:

I was not suggesting that a load of stubs should be created, but if there is sufficient prose and material to make some decent articles, I am all for that. If Bahrain can even make a stub there must be lots of possibilities for the larger countries. Perhaps we should make a concerted effort to gather

274:

Actually I deliberately made it "postage stamps" so as to exclude other types of adhesive labels, in particular revenue stamps, which don't seem like they fit well into the overall narrative. Also, postal stuff categorizes under "Communications in X", but revenues don't really fit, they're more of a

4583:

Some of you may know that a range of Doctor Who stamps is coming out this year. The Doctor who wikiproject is naturally interested, but they're not 100% sure of the copyright status of British stamps. In addition, I am unsure about the notability of individual runs of stamps like this. Could anybody

4267:

I'm no Australian expert, but this plainly is a fake. Earee (Album Weeds, Vol. V., p. 119), states that a common forgery is lithographed and "The labels containing NEW and WALES have no semicircles along their inner borders." See the attached image which has the semicircles lacking in the image in

3755:

approach that will stop working with next year's page redesign. I've also found that the images can prompt work on related articles, for instance if they need more depth to explain how a printing process can go awry, or the historical context for how a stamp got to the proof stage before rejection.

3732:

They (and I) can offer support in a variety of ways - recommending sources on a particular topic, reading over and commenting on finished articles, and hopefully providing copyright-cleared images from the collection to illustrate them. If anyone is interested, please do get in touch to discuss what

3523:

I apologise if I have not established sufficient consensus for this. I have posted on this page several times since December as I was making the changes and received no opposition. I seem to have misunderstood the degree of consensus that implied. You have asked me to revert but I assume this refers

3444:

I have changed the request about the flatness of the categories to just request no unnecessary sub-categories so that should meet the above objection I think. Also, I am more than happy to revert the blanking of any "Postage stamps of" categories on request so that they continue to group the postage

3317:

The wording sounds like a good idea. In my experience (1) categories only get unwieldy when there is more than one page of entries - a couple of hundred, I think, is the limit - and (2) the way sub-categories seem to work isn't very intuitive for me as an only occasional tinkerer around with things.

3075:

I am not proposing that every country have an article on each of those areas, that would not be justified in most cases, just that where they do have multiple articles that it would make more sense to have one correctly named higher level category. I agree some people wouldn't know what philately is

3060:

Stamps") but if they got to any length, they should be split off as independent articles. There has been a lot of discussion over the country titles as "Postage stamps and postal history of X" and, although unwieldy, that seems to have been accepted. Many readers will have no idea what "philately"

2598:

that he died on 18 june 1990. It was put there by an Australian e-mailer with no sourcing. I have no reason to doubt that person's good faith in saying so. SDY seems absolutely determined to get rid of the article. He has already extended the AfD twice because he didn't have enough support. It is an

2076:

has only made a few recent edits in August 2010 after about 800 stamp list related edits in 2005. Perhaps we need to form a consensus on the minimum entries required for such lists to make it notable enough to keep. The topic of list notability was discussed as recently as March 2010 at the archived

1827:

I don't think there is much doubt about this is there? A catalogue producers numbering system IS copyrightable but we can make selective fair use of it as long as is is proportional and we don't go too far. The Krause case is not the same as they are a catalogue producer in competition with Scott so

1120:

importance to the Philately WikiProject. As the Fletcher has objects recognized of world-wide importance, such as the 1682 Penny Post Paid Dockwra handstamp, this seems an odd rating (as the Importance scale has yet to be agreed, I can only compare with other philatelic articles). Could someone from

459:

Regarding the categories at Commons I didn't create them with any plan in mind for this Wiki, it just seemed common sense as there were a lot of unsorted revenue stamps all mixed in one category. I agree the newly created articles are a bit thin at present but it was more to get feedback on a format

289:

I agree, trying to deal with them within the same flow would be very confusing. With so many articles already created, the logical approach seems to be to add revenues and cinderellas at the end of the article until the revenue section is large enough to justify its own article. Cinderella stamps of

4000:

I went through the list of members a week or so ago and left messages for the ones who are a) currently active, and b) currently contributing to philatelic topics; I think I might do a second wave for those who're currently active but working on other things, to see if any of them are interested in

3939:

I don't want to discourage you Andrew, and my views may not be representative, but the state of Philately on this wiki is completely unrelated to the availability or otherwise of material from the BL. I think that it would be interesting to hear from other members what they would want to receive/or

3754:

The bottom-up approach is to focus on particular stamps/topics of special interest. In those cases it's essential to get copies of the images (with links back to the source); for a visual hobby, text-only articles are not of much interest, plus having the images only stored externally is a brittle

3748:

Exciting! I can see a couple key fronts for development - one top-down, and the other bottom-up. The top-down approach is exemplified by our single-country philately overview articles; they are, in a sense, the connection between the world in general and the philatelic corner of it. The BL could

3254:

This is a reasonable aim of yours yet the counter request is also a reasonable one. You may consider developing consensus for a via media where a very small amount of categories may help you achieve your aim without overcategorisation. Say three-four categories at the most, such as one category on

2871:

Looks interesting and could be a really useful resource once it's ready. It could perhaps use a bit more "how-to" information and one thing I've noticed is that what look like placeholder images can be really confusing. I've got a fairly average collection of most countries so I could probably scan

2619:. A number of the persons so described not only have no article in English, but also have no article in their native language. I'd happily name them, but it would be easier demonstrated by looking at that page and counting those red links which do not have after them links to articles in Hungarian. 2614:

I have no opinion on the notability (or otherwise) of this person, but this is with regard to your comment: "So tell me of one other person who has been identifiably featured on a stamp, and who has not had an article an article allowed." There are numerous people who have appeared on stamps and do

1010:

Clearly there are limits. For example, a book could be written, and probably has been, on the facsimiles of Fiji Scott 45 which were made in 1900, the details of how they differ from the original design, and, importantly, how they are postmarked. Any dealer in the stamps of Fiji is expected to know

831:

Knowledge does seem to come close to a "catalog" or "database of collectibles" in the "List of people/birds/fish & other things on stamps" articles. As to those articles, it appears that not much more than "the existence of reliable published information" is needed to be included. There is no

675:

Thanks. I'm double checking the lists and verifying each entry against a stamp catalogue (I've got a complete set of Gibbons' catalogues, and a few others as well), checking that the links go to the right person and adding the obvious missing persons. Some articles (e.g. Australia) seem to have had

339:

I doubt there would be sufficient concensus to carry this out at this stage. It is probably better to accept what we have and add revenues at the end and split off when justified. One argument for the Postage Stamps Of title is that it does naturally lend itself to a complimentary Revenue Stamps Of

4444:

Actually this stamp has made me think about partition and the use of stamps. I think on reflection that it is a stamp for use throughout the whole of Ireland prior to partition and the Northern Ireland version (issued 1921) was only required after partition. Who knew a dog licence stamp could make

3803:

The category structure should show all of the countries clearly, in fact I would be surprised if there are any major countries for which there is not a philatelic article, even if most of them are stubs. Similarly, we probably have articles for all of the important philatelic terms, but few of the

3724:

One of the subjects that's very promising is philately; compared to some other subjects, philately is relatively underrepresented on Knowledge, and while there are some very good articles (including one FA), there are a lot more that are stubs, or simply missing. The BL has a number of world-class

2554:

Huh, I never noticed that this stamp actually names a specific person - the stamp's inscription literally says "Steve, son of Oala". That is very unusual for non-royalty, in fact I can't think of another example like that anywhere. However, stamps reflect notability rather than confer it, so the

1555:

The contents of this catalogue, including the numbering system and illustrations, are fully protected by copyright. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,

1135:

The classifications look about right, particularly as the articles are at an early stage. There are many fine collections that are important if that is what you study or collect but that does not make them important from the point of view of this encyclopedia. They are all welcome articles though.

4036:

may be interested. I wouldn't, however, want to see the Knowledge angle hidden behind the glossyness, though you are absolutely right that a private tour of the department, opportunity to see material not otherwise on display etc may draw people in. I would see it as a session where the objective

4013:

at people interested in philately, perhaps by working with a society. Couple this with some of the "glossy" aspects of an event (curators involved, material displayed), and we might pick up some active editors who're interested but haven't worked on the topic before, as well. You know the offline

3921:

Mmmm - the manpower gap is endemic in many projects, unfortunately! The issue about a surplus of easily-obtainable standard sources hadn't occured to me, though I can certainly see why it comes about. Is this still the case with specialised works, eg/ books on specific stamps, or is there still a

3720:

at the British Library; this is a full-time position working within the BL and aiming to help support collaboration between the institutional community and the Wikimedia community. I've been looking at topics where a) the BL has a lot to offer the community, and b) there's a strong desire to work

3485:

Philafrenzy, if you have depopulated and blanked the pages (!) of many categories without prior discussion, you come perilously close to being accused of large-scale vandalism at worst and callous disregard of process at best. If you wish to get rid of categories, you may not blank them, but must

3280:

Rubbish - this issue needs to be considered that it runs counter to what parent and child categories are in category trees and seems to show a self invented idea about visibility that has nothing to do with good categorisation. To have one parent category I have no problem with - but to have an

1909:

A single catalogue number (Scott, Gibbons, Michel, Campbell Paterson, etc.) in an article about a notable stamp shouldn't be a problem, as far as I understand it. But the main description of the stamp should be one that is independent of catalogue numbering. I would suggest that any stamp notable

1767:

permission. The permission they give would not be in itself acceptable on Knowledge, as it does not mention the relevant licensing requirements of modification and commercial reuse. Whether use is fair depends on four factors, of course; I believe our primary focus needs to be on "the purpose and

1686:

Regarding the suggestion that condition (e) gives us permission can be compared directly with regular fair-use for press and editorial purposes that generally Knowledge does not consider as being free enough for our use under our fair-use criteria. Due to the fact that philatelists from different

4296:

Yep. I was wondering how it got by me originally, and upon examining the Scott catalogue I was using at the time (pre-color-pics), it looks like their illustration was of the forgery! There seems to be a shortage of high-resolution examples online, we could really use detailed images of all the

4004:

Bulk upload is a possibility - there's issues around it, as I'm sure you can imagine, but it's certainly an option on the table and one I'm hopeful we'll get somewhere with! One big question, practical issues aside, will be identifying suitable and desirable material - obviously the curators can

3897:

I know what you meant but feel free to claim all the credit, someone might as well. BL help is most definitely needed with the articles about their collections, and anything else they can provide is to the good, but really we do not need BL help to fill out the country articles which must be our

3682:

etc. that are important parts of philately. The extent to which it has been possible to populate the "Philately of..." categories I think shows just what I mean. I think that we also need to differentiate "Philately of" from "Philately in". I am not against categories which cover the practice of

3573:

I fully agree that the philately-cats should not be the main cat for articles on mail or stamps, It's about the business/hobby and not a synonym for the stamps in general. On the other hand, I do understand it is sometimes is hard to find the right forum to have such discussions, so this kind of

3034:

There are 32 categories by this name. I would like to propose that they be changed to "Philately of X" in order to cover all philatelic articles of any kind relating to the same country under one category, e.g. Postal history of X, list articles, Revenue stamps of X, Telegraph stamps of X etc as

2952:

I see the rationale - trying to capture the list of non-UPU members that provide postal services - but in this day and age non-UPU is trivially short, seems like it could be a parenthetical comment in other articles. It rarely seems like a good idea to me to lose the definition of a term into a

2250:

Put it up for speedy deletion on the basis that a stamp recently discovered and sold for millions would have press coverage, there is none in a full newspaper search on Nexis and none of the several footnoted citations can be verified. All Google matches appear to be the same (very busy) spammer

2095:

I don't know enough about ornithology to be much help with that article, unfortunately. Looking through the catalogue I don't see any other obvious bird stamps issued by Seiyun, which ceased to exist in 1967. As there seems to be a precedent that lists of items on stamps of (philatelically) dead

1742:

As far as I can see there is no pre-existing relevant case law that would relate to successfully stopping the use of selected catalogue numbers (rather the entire database) in any third party publication. If anyone was worried they could ask Scott to provide an opinion on whether they care about

1500:

Some time ago I was considering our use of catalogue numbers and wondered if we should be using them, especially because they are the copyright of the publishers. I have real reservation whether we should be using catalogue numbers to identify stamps on Knowledge; I very much doubt the numbering

3954:

Sure - I don't think the provision of material is going to be a magic bullet or that it's the priority requirement, but I think it might help in some specific cases. In my experience (with other topics, admittedly) the ability to find specific resources is often something of a stumbling block -

3860:

Since you are getting the credit for it, can I have part of your salary please? There are no established notability criteria specifically for this project so we just use common sense and the standard ones. Obviously every country needs a philatelic article and there are collector articles, just

3296:

I think you may have got a bit carried away here. If your objection is only the request that ideally no more categories be added, I am more than happy to remove that suggestion if that is counter to policy or the consensus. Do you have any other objection to what I have done? The "Philately of"

1969:

I've made a start on adding content to the page. However as my reference catalogues are from a British publisher, it would probably be better for someone with access to European catalogues (I think Michel or Yvert are the biggest names there?) to cross-check and add references from those works.

1633:

To the best of my knowledge, a catalogue numbering system is copyright as it is an original work of the compiler. In addition, as each catalogue uses a separate numbering system, and there are many different catalogue publishers, a short description of the stamp would be much more useful to the

420:

While I am still not really in favour of separate articles because to the close association between postage stamps and revenue stamp, many of which are postage stamps used for revenue purposes, none of the new articles hardly seems worth making separately from the main stamp article but I won't

3902:

for instance, but other articles for important countries are very thin indeed. The sources are all out there and there really is no difficulty finding them. Catalogues with the basics are in most public libraries and available on eBay or elsewhere for nominal sums. The legendary Stamp Atlas by

1873:

It is caution I am suggesting as such a system is copyrightable in principle, even if Scott may have let their numbering system leak into the public domain to a certain extent through their lax policing of thier rights in the past as Krause argued. I am suggesting that we treat it as non-free.

4516:

You can find brief details in the Barefoot catalogues for British Commonwealth Revenues and Great Britain Revenues, both of which should be in the philatelic department library, but be careful, if you spend too long on it you may turn into a philatelist with consequent loss of teeth and hair.

3357:

within an internal structural component of the machinery is missing the point - the philately category for uniformity - if in a whole range of countries there are many sub categories - they should be embraced and accepted ... category mainspace pages are not for the average user anyways...

914:

One could flip this around and ask what are some *non*-notable stamps. The average Christmas stamp? 10th anniversary of ABCD organization? Individual members of a definitive series seem un-notable on their own, but the series as a whole seems clearly notable. Firsts seem notable, otherwise

4008:

An editing event would be great, but it'd need a certain critical mass of people there to be most effective, which runs into the same distance/number-of-users problem. I'm currently working out a program of public outreach sessions - practical training in how to edit, etc. - and we could try

714:

We've merged some short lists into longer ones, for instance the predecessors of Australia and South Africa, because there's not much value in having lots of separate short lists - we broke up the big list because it was big, not because it was an illogical organization. There are a couple

340:

article in due course. There is also the fact that while postage stamps are well researched in almost all cases, the sources for revenue stamps are much patchier. What is the consenus on starting to create some Revenue Stamps Of articles and how would they fit into the overall structure?

3555:

I ask you to revert all category blankings, which are disruptive, and all mass removals of categories from pages, until you have positive consensus for such actions. I have no objections to your parallel "Philately of..." category, but I believe it should hold only articles related to

3631:(and possibly categorizing etc) stamps (possibly extended to automatic postage marks etc). I didn't know it could cover more post-related things, but that is not my point: the point is that the articles are not about the hobby/job, but about the stamps area itself. That means that a 2829: 1614:

As for Scott numbers, I don't think Knowledge articles are examples of copyright violation, as above described under the conditions (a) to (e), if the numbers are used occasionally and just one or a few per article. However, more extensive use of the Scott numbers like in

205:

Concur with Ashlin. Revenue stamps are indeed philatelic. They may not be postage stamps, but are typically considered part and parcel of the philatelic history of any country. Excluding a reference to them because they are not exactly postage stamps seems exceptionally

4408: 2337:

I don't get it why this article has been nominated for deleting for a reason of duplicating a category. Since when have we been considering articles as duplications of categories? Any comments? I would especially appreciate a comment from Stan Shebs, an EN:WP bureaucrat.

2479:

I noticed that this project covers the Pony Express, a private commercial venture, and not a public post system. Does this project cover post delivery systems other than the post office? (ie. FedEx (letters, packages, etc), Western Union (telegram), courrier services )

1785:

Coming back to clarify my opinion, as what's under discussion here is much broader than whether "a reference such as 'Virgin Islands, Scott 18a'" would be an issue, again, what it comes down to is "purpose and character" and "amount and substantiality". It's usage in

188:

Disagree to Redtigerxyz's proposal. While revenue stamps are not postage stamps, they have a long history of affiliation of postage stamps e.g. postage stamps used as revenue stamps & vice versa, created just by overprinting postage stamps, common production etc.

3780:

have, how good they are, etc. This is especially the case for particular items of interest - while I can easily work out which overview articles we're missing or need expanding, identifying individual items we should have an article on is quite difficult. The

2265:

That article is a complete and utter hoax with no redeeming features whatsoever. In 1847 Japan was a closed country to an extent that would make modern North Korea look open and welcoming; it had practically no trade, never mind trade denominated in dollars.

1523:(b) Such use is incidental to the business of buying and selling stamps and is limited in scope and lenght, i.e., does not cover a substantial portion of the total number of stamps issued by any country or of any special category of stamps of any country; and 1486:

I seems to me that if the information cited is in the Scott, Stanley-Gibbons, or other major stamp catalogue, a reference such as "Virgin Islands, Scott 18a" should be sufficient — cited in that instance as an example of a double impression, of an overprint.

3647:(discussing it becoming popular in the 70ties, with the valuable airmail stamps of the fifties and the structure of several well known collection agencies). These articles (if well sourced) would be very useful, but to my knowledge, they don't exist! 745:

I left some names unlinked as these people are unlikely ever to be notable enough to have their own article and just today removed a few other links. You could take this course and/or only link the most notable people who actually have articles.

3385:

I think flatter is generally better, but it seems like a lost cause trying to hold back the categorizers who aren't satisfied until each article has its own separate category. (And you're not sure if I was exaggerating just then, right? :-) ).

4501:

I wonder if there were multiple rates, or if they had multiple denominations of stamp to allow paying for several dogs at once. Interesting question! I shall see if I can dig up anything in Whitaker's, if I can find a contemporary one...

3239:

instructive and useful to see how well covered different countries are on this project, but I know there is no rule about the flatness of categories and it may be that the request is inappropriate. Please let me know your views.

1015:

a note might be appropriate, as it is in Scotts Catalogue, but not a long article on them. There is no great pressure here to include such detail, but if it is to be it belongs on Wikia, which, by the way, has no philately wiki.

3673:

is and has been the most important but there is so much more to it than postage stamps and if we orientate solely around postage stamps we miss out other types of stamps (revenue/saving/cinderella etc) and other areas such as

2890:

And I was so proud of the synthetic images! :-) The site supports its own uploading (mostly so it can track both covers / album page and crops of them to get the individual stamps), so sure, it would be great to get them up.

1584:

To be honest it sounds like a load of bullshit. I don't think you can copyright a numbering system (nor individual code numbers) under the United States copyright law. Lets see what experienced copyright editors think though.

1189:

where some inconsistencies and need for guidance were pointed out. Articles should be rated by their significance to philately as a whole. Given the vast world of philately, it seems to me that the rating of an article like

1535:(e) Such use is for editorial purposes in publications in the form of articles or commentary, except for computer software or the serialization of books in such publications, for which separate written permission is required. 934:

The Penny Black has been plated. If a reliable source is considered sufficient the characteristics of each plate could be considered notable. Consider, for example Australia Scott 245, according to the Brusden-White catalog,

887:

that explores this a little but basically it is possible to have a notable and verifiable list that may in itself satisfy the criteria (say, on the grounds of historic impact) and so the members of it need not fulfil the

4151:

The majority of stamps in use here are fairly old and so should be safe. The more modern stuff may be lost but it may not be much of a loss. I see that there is a project under way on Commons to implement this new rule.

3804:

important collectors. I am not arguing that there is nothing to do, on the contrary, but I think developing the existing articles is really the next stage. (And I am sure you are aware that there is at least a stub for

3145:

of X and postal history of X categories which clutter up the structure and largely duplicate each other (there may be exceptions), but I am not proposing the deletion of those categories now. Comments would be welcome.

4425:

That is awesome wikification Andrew. Great to be able to show the resulting stamp. It is a southern Ireland stamp, according to the Barefoot catalogue, with the 4 shilling version issued in Northern Ireland too in an

1859:

question is the creativity brought to bear. I know nothing about stamp collecting or the systems used to codify stamps, but even so would believe that the settlement itself suggests caution is warranted on our part.

1527:(c) Such material is not used as part of any catalogue, stamp album or computerized or other system based upon the Scott catalogue numbers, or in any updated valuations of stamps not offered for sale or purchase, and 919:

wouldn't rate an article. :-) As for lists, we've discussed before, and I think there is a category in which topical collector interest is what makes notability - thus birds and fish, but maybe not five-year plans.

2743:

which have some widely acknowledged flaw due to a mistake in design or production. Such stamps tend to get well-documented due to collector interest, so references establishing membership shouldn't be a problem.

2190:

I have reverted the most recent edits but given them a nice welcome and some advice as a new user. They appear to be making test edits and may not have English as a first language (considering they have installed a

2523:, who has as his primary "claim to fame" that he was a subject of a stamp when he was a young 'un. Does this project have any notability guidelines for subjects of stamps? Is the stamp in question notable? His 566: 2696:

I think the article merits a criticism subsection, and indeed when I reviewed the edit logs such a section had been made, then removed! What is up with that? Some censorship on the part of the stamp collectors?

1948: 866:, which I recently did some work on, most of the red links are to people who would probably be considered notable but who do not yet have articles - a number of former Cabinet Ministers, a famous hotelier, etc. 3490:. I ask you to please undo all edits in which you have blanked category pages and mass-removed categories from articles. Please take the appropriate steps to establish consensus before resuming such activity. 1848:

It was an astute and high-impact tour de force in copyright law as it relates to what some have come to believe was an unfair monopoly by Scott of a numbering system that has long since been in the public

3825:

We have country and term articles, but not collectors - hmm. Where do we stand, currently, on things like "individual" stamps? I have no idea what number of rare/significant stamps might rate an article

3166: 1648:

I agree that the use of the numbers is to be avoided if possible in favour of a description of the stamp using generic philatelic terms which can then be linked to the relevant articles as necessary.

661:, then not worked on since. Lists from actual countries are safe and could even be gotten to featured lists if someone were energetic, while the Abkhazia case is weird and I'm on the fence about it. 1370: 3297:

categories are already at the bottom of a pile of other categories and presumably the structure has to stop somewhere, we don't extend it to higher levels of detail just for the sake of it do we?

2130:) and would like to bring in some Wikipedians who would be interested in supporting long term improvement to philately articles on Knowledge. To join in with a discussion at the BL (it's next to 4014:

philatelic community better than I do - do you think there are people out there who might be interested in this sort of thing if we arranged it? If it sounds possible, I'll float it with David.

4407:

The best one of the files available was for a revenue stamp (good to have variety...) and, as it turned out, we actually have an image of the corresponding stamp, which you uploaded last year!

4166:

The review process does give in-use images a chance to be transferred, so it's unlikely anything will vanish without warning. I also copied the whole pile to stampdata.com, just in case. :-)

1539:

Any use of the material in this book which does not satisfy all the foregoing conditions is forbidden in any form unless permission in each instance is given in writing by the copyright owner.

1186: 2195:

script). I suggest giving them a couple of hours to finish whatever they are doing and then revisiting the page, if necessary reverting any non-grammatical changes or apparent test edits.

3129:

categories, Bahrain, China and India. These yielded 3, 10 and 17 members respectively. Every country would probably yield at least three articles, even the small ones, as there will be a

4326: 4545: 4538: 1163: 765: 3538:

Whether you have actually improved anything is a matter of opinion - and you should seek other wikipedians comments first, then congratulate yourself after... there is nothing about

3907:

is available on Amazon UK from 1p. It's just a matter of there being insufficient contributors to do the work. I, and the few other active people, can't do it all, nor should we.

2235:

is extremely suspicious, from the anachronistic typeface and design seen in the purported image, to the improbable timeline, to the curiously vague and/or non-expert references.

4189: 2599:

oddball situation, and getting more information about a Papuan is not the same as for someone in the developed world. Your and other philatelists' help would be appreciated.

1191: 1159: 1369:

tabel seems to be a decent start though the low-class description appears to be rather understated. The first point of reference for developing any importance scale must be

900:). In general it is good practice for lists of people to require articles to exist for members of the list, but there is scope for exceptions when the case is clearly made. 3234:

Please try to keep this category as flat as possible by not adding sub-categories so that ALL of the philatelic articles relating to this country can be seen in one place.

2209:

Unfortunately they continued to edit-war and it appears possible that they might have been attempting to spam the page with a photo of something they have up for sale.

4484: 3012: 3008: 3000: 643:

Thanks for the comments. Have added ISBNs and done a bit of minor tidying up. Let me know if they look good enough to get by with and I'll start work on more of them.

862:

For the most part, until recently, being commemorated by the issue of a legitimate postage stamp was something that only happened to notable people. For instance, on

3773:

I can certainly provide sourcing for either type, and images of a wide range of material are one of the things very prominently on my to-organise list, fear not :-)

2673: 86: 3185: 2872:

anything that's out of copyright (e.g. anything local up to 1945, I think, it out of copyright) and upload it somewhere for you. Let me know if you're interested.

1519:(a) The material is used in advertising matter, circulars or price lists for the purpose of offering stamps for sale or purchase at the prices listed therein; and 1505:. Scott has an extensive copyright notice in their catalogue and I believe they are rather protective of this numbering system. This notice is transcribed from my 2078: 1989: 81: 69: 64: 59: 2981: 3507:

There are also a number of categories which Philafrenzy had deleted thru CSD as empty categories that need to be restore as well as the structures around them.

2934: 2926: 988:

All this gets back to my original comment: Knowledge (for better or worse) is not that different from a stamp catalog or a database of collectables. See, e.g.,

3899: 2825: 2574: 2321: 249: 1890:

Do we have agreement on the most basic and minimal use; that it is acceptable (unless there is a specific complaint from the copyright holder) that quoting

1257: 1246: 3669:. The philately article does make it clear that there is much more to it than stamps, there are nine types in the "Types" section of the article. Clearly 3318:

I think that with about 90% of the countries of the world, it would be a struggle to find more than a couple of dozen articles that fit in the category.

1461: 154: 4239:

That would be good to know, albeit irritating, as I paid full price for it once upon a time... and don't remember the dealer, so no chance of a refund.

3459:

Please revert all changes to Australian postage stamp categories, including Norfolk, Christmas Island, Australian Antartic terriory Cocos Is. etc then.

2429: 1012: 4459:

Yes, I suspect that's it - my understanding is that the civil service and administrative system was essentially uniform throughout Ireland until the

2175:

Could someone advise me what to about changes to this article by Alliotdram in the most expensive stamps section which seem wrong to me. Thank you.

4005:

recommend good things, but if we can align any images with the writing interests of existing editors, so much the better in terms of it being used.

2993: 2732: 1460:

While all project assessments are a subjective criteria I see no problem in developing a table that includes some clearer definitions for our use

847: 594: 543: 3024: 2391: 2377: 2317: 2069: 2025: 3375:

lower categories, nothing more and nothing less. I won't be at my computer for a while now so will be unable to contribute more until later. ] (

2852:

Hi all, if anybody has been wondering why I haven't been around much for the past several months, here is the new website I've been working on:

3726: 3401: 3204: 2450: 1851:") I don't know the background of their catalog system; "decades of work" does not factor into US copyright law, as the US does not recognize " 1083: 123: 4585: 1772:

as though the usage under discussion here should be an issue from a copyright standpoint. I have no opinion about its merits otherwise. :) --

1566:

certainly contravenes the Scott copyright even if some might consider individual occasional as acceptable. Personally I suspect any use is a

4224:

There is some feedback saying that "The picutre of the 2d laureate is actually a Spiro Brothers forgery." Can any Australia expert confirm?

3879:

me, I mean told me how impressed they were having heard about the existing work you did! No credit either given or claimed on my behalf :-)

2810: 2698: 2635: 1724: 1616: 1563: 508: 47: 17: 2784: 2616: 1433: 742: 2481: 1791: 119: 4133: 3054:. The consensus seemed to be that revenue stamps might be included as a section of the country articles (notwithstanding the title " 1109: 1402: 863: 3349:

is a misreading of the function of categories - parent, child and grandchild, all serve a purpose - to be concerned about either

2776: 1422: 1412: 1392: 114:

a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for

4052:

week, so I can see what they think, and start thinking about practicalities - I'll drop you an email once I've spoken to them.

2454: 1445: 788: 615:

If it interests you, of course it is. In WP we don't do original research but we synthesize knowledge to create new resources.

4460: 1090: 593:" articles are perfunctory at best. I've done a bit of work (updating, adding references and filling in missing names) from 4355:

Does anyone have a three-dimensional picture of a stamp die (not a die proof or pull) that they could add to this article?

3011:. All editors interested in improving these articles or voting for next months collaboration are encouraged to participate 100:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4638:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4593: 3831: 2232: 601:. Is it worth me carrying on doing this? I've got a decent set of catalogues for referencing and checking facts against. 1065: 131: 2126:

I am in the process of arranging a follow-up discussion with the British Library after the successful edit-a-thon (see

4029: 3683:

philately in a particular country but I am not proposing those, only a category covering all aspects of the philately

2442: 2395: 2373: 2097: 1029: 815: 598: 3776:

From both directions, I think part of what we'd need is an organised idea of what articles we have, what articles we

3632: 3141:

articles for each. Some will be much larger. I am now going to refrain from creating any more in case anyone objects.

1253: 4136:

to the status of German stamps? We may have to transfer some possible fair-use images here before they are deleted.

3578:

is there someone well versed-enough in automated edits to easily revert this; after which we can start an RFC here?

1954:

For those who would be interested in developing and maintaining these lists, please comment on the deletion page. --

4122: 3717: 2446: 2354: 1799: 127: 38: 4253:

I am not sure it is a forgery, but someone has said it is in the beta article feedback tool. They might be wrong.

3644: 3262:

and links therein which will help you to find the right line to take in this issue. You may also consider using a

1810:, the matter was evidently not dismissed for no cause, which means that we shouldn't conclude that the content is 1743:

sample catalogue numbers being quoted in Knowledge articles and then we would have something material to discuss.

4430:

form. Seems the BL file name is wrong? According to Barefoot it shows the Irish Hound so I will tie that in too.

4110: 2837: 2343: 1959: 1624: 1570:

and should be removed but would like to hear other views especially from editors experience in copyright issues.

1295: 1265: 422: 365: 2736: 2653:. More than the existence of reliable published information regarding specific items is required for inclusion. 2096:

countries are included in lists of items on stamps of the country they're now part of, I'd suggest moving it to

1895:

no existing case law for a single catalogue number being copyright protected that is not a specific trademark)?

1032:, I don't know what to think. It does seem a good way to identify notable people who might otherwise be missed. 4589: 4553: 4033: 3263: 2716: 2702: 2404: 1787: 1320:

higher than Low importance in the context of the philately project seems contradictory to my layman viewpoint.

1210:

higher than Low importance in the context of the philately project seems contradictory to my layman viewpoint.

806:. More than the existence of reliable published information regarding specific items is required for inclusion. 658: 4544:

Greetings, if anyone is interested in helping a declined AFC, there's one of possible interest to y'all here:

2814: 989: 896:) criteria. The grounds for why this might apply for a particular list should be clear in the lead text (per 3839: 3471:

Postage stamps of Australia re-populated as requested. Let me know if it still isn't what you want. Thanks.

2930: 2918: 2794: 2604: 2467: 2135: 993: 373: 369: 4628: 4612: 4597: 4572: 4557: 4526: 4511: 4496: 4472: 4454: 4439: 4420: 4396: 4379: 4364: 4343: 4306: 4291: 4277: 4262: 4248: 4233: 4201: 4175: 4161: 4145: 4075: 4061: 4046: 4023: 3995: 3968: 3949: 3934: 3916: 3892: 3870: 3851: 3817: 3798: 3764: 3742: 3696: 3656: 3614: 3587: 3568: 3550: 3533: 3514: 3502: 3480: 3466: 3454: 3439: 3421: 3395: 3380: 3365: 3327: 3306: 3288: 3275: 3248: 3220: 3197: 3178: 3154: 3099: 3085: 3070: 3051: 3044: 2970: 2946: 2900: 2881: 2865: 2841: 2818: 2706: 2685: 2666: 2628: 2608: 2586: 2564: 2548: 2508: 2489: 2469: 2366: 2347: 2325: 2313: 2297: 2275: 2260: 2244: 2218: 2204: 2184: 2162: 2147: 2109: 2090: 2055: 2037: 2015: 2001: 1979: 1963: 1929: 1919: 1904: 1883: 1864: 1837: 1818: 1776: 1752: 1736: 1704: 1657: 1643: 1628: 1609: 1594: 1579: 1494: 1473: 1348: 1329: 1299: 1285: 1269: 1237: 1219: 1203: 1175: 1145: 1130: 1102: 1074: 1039: 1023: 1005: 982: 947: 929: 909: 875: 857: 841: 825: 777: 755: 724: 685: 670: 652: 638: 624: 610: 578: 555: 520: 511:

on line catalog for "revenue stamps" as subject produced 123 hits, and that is just scraping the surface.

500: 469: 442: 407: 389: 349: 334: 299: 284: 261: 215: 198: 182: 147: 4337: 4333: 3782: 2805:. As an unregistered editor I can't create the category but I'll be happy to help populate it if someone 2485: 2043: 4624: 4608: 4568: 4522: 4507: 4492: 4468: 4450: 4435: 4416: 4392: 4375: 4360: 4258: 4229: 4157: 4102: 4071: 4057: 4042: 4019: 3991: 3964: 3945: 3930: 3912: 3888: 3866: 3847: 3813: 3794: 3789:); would it be worth compiling a list of "priority items" I can try and seek out references/images for? 3738: 3692: 3610: 3529: 3476: 3450: 3376: 3323: 3302: 3244: 3216: 3150: 3109: 3081: 3040: 2914: 2877: 2806: 2780: 2764: 2748: 2624: 2504: 2331: 2271: 2180: 2105: 2011: 1975: 1925:

subjective. Knowledge aims to be conservative there, but not insane. :) Brief and purposeful are key. --

1915: 1639: 1491: 1336: 1225: 1098: 1036: 1020: 944: 871: 854: 822: 681: 648: 606: 4098: 3822:

I do indeed! And impressive they are too, three departments have praised it to me so far this week :-)

3432:

I would back such a suggestion - at RFC - rather than continuing on as if nothing had been questioned

1798:

note that an individual song made the list in its own article. In terms of amount and substantiality,

4302: 4244: 4171: 3760: 3640: 3636: 3391: 2966: 2896: 2861: 2833: 2760: 2560: 2339: 2240: 1955: 1803: 1620: 1291: 1261: 978: 925: 811: 720: 666: 280: 211: 1875: 1829: 1649: 1601: 1277: 1137: 769: 461: 426: 395: 381: 341: 291: 253: 4549: 4197: 4141: 4118: 3511: 3463: 3281:

instruction of which many will have no idea about what is going on is simply disruptive behaviour

3193: 3174: 2942: 2740: 2458: 2293: 2131: 2086: 1997: 1926: 1879: 1861: 1833: 1815: 1773: 1700: 1653: 1605: 1575: 1469: 1281: 1141: 1113: 773: 751: 634: 574: 551: 496: 465: 438: 385: 345: 295: 257: 4546:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Philatelic Society

4539:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Philatelic Society

3556:

stamp-collecting, and perhaps the "Post stamps of" and "Postal history of" categories as subcats.

2921:? Postal entities is not a recognised term for the organisations providing postal services, while 328:

to justify the inclusion of revenue stamps in such articles. It is never too late to improve... --

232:

but I suppose it is too late to change it now. I think the correct structure of these articles is

3898:

biggest weakness in this project as a whole. Some of them are good - someone has gone to town on

3547: 3436: 3362: 3285: 3259: 2989: 2788: 2600: 2524: 2462: 589:

On the periphery of this subject: I noticed that a lot of these "List of people on the stamps of

2657:

Has been proposed to be an official guideline. Discussion is at the link in the section title.

3337: 1047: 4330: 4287: 4273: 3679: 3230:

I have received an objection to the following wording that I have placed in these categories:

3095: 3066: 3020: 2756: 2681: 2662: 2425: 2362: 2127: 1852: 1732: 1344: 1233: 1199: 1162:

as of low importance to this project when this collection is notable for holding the renowned

1001: 970: 884: 837: 516: 403: 4409:

File:Northern Ireland Revenue Dog Licence 1865-1928 2 shillings steel die for letterpress.JPG

4620: 4604: 4564: 4518: 4503: 4488: 4464: 4446: 4431: 4412: 4388: 4385: 4371: 4356: 4254: 4225: 4153: 4067: 4053: 4038: 4015: 3987: 3960: 3941: 3926: 3908: 3884: 3862: 3843: 3809: 3790: 3734: 3688: 3662: 3606: 3525: 3472: 3446: 3319: 3298: 3271: 3240: 3212: 3146: 3105: 3077: 3036: 2873: 2802: 2620: 2595: 2500: 2267: 2176: 2169: 2158: 2101: 2033: 2007: 1971: 1911: 1635: 1590: 1515:

Permission is hereby given for the use of material in this book and covered by copyright if:

1488: 1094: 1060: 1033: 1017: 941: 867: 851: 819: 789:

Knowledge:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

783:

Knowledge:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

677: 644: 620: 602: 329: 194: 177: 111: 1768:

character" of our use and "the amount and substantiality of the portion used". It does not

4349: 4298: 4240: 4167: 3904: 3756: 3652: 3583: 3387: 2962: 2892: 2857: 2646: 2556: 2536: 2496: 2403:

Completely unreferenced, no claim to notability, just a single-entry table with no prose,

2236: 1691:) though it has no direct comparison with the use here and a 2002 cease and desist letter 1546: 1506: 974: 921: 880: 799: 716: 662: 276: 207: 169: 143: 3211:

the collaborators visit the Library to extract the information to complete the articles.

2256: 2214: 2200: 2143: 2051: 1900: 1748: 1325: 1215: 1171: 1126: 1121:

the project take a second look at the ratings for the articles in this category? Thanks,

905: 429:

back in April 2010, I presume for this purpose, so there is quite an amount of material.

118:

and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of

4216: 629:

All verifiable reference are good but if your literature has ISBNs you should add them.

507:

There are numerous catalogs, books and articles on this subject. A quick search of the

135: 4619:

And so have I. I agree with Philafrenzy on the copyright and notability issues anyway.

4193: 4137: 4114: 3675: 3639:

cat would be suitable, but that would run into a duplicate category. I would reserve a

3559: 3508: 3493: 3460: 3412: 3189: 3170: 2954: 2938: 2929:

which is essentially the same list. Anyone object to restoring the article and merging

2798: 2768: 2532: 2289: 2082: 1993: 1696: 1571: 1465: 1362: 1358: 969:

FWIW - there has been a recent change to the Notability guideline re Stand Alone Lists

832:

notability requirement, for example. And that is true for non-philatelic lists as well.

747: 657:

Some of these lists are perfunctory because they were split out from the once-enormous

630: 570: 547: 492: 434: 173: 115: 2984:: the interpretation of Moldovan stamps being in public domain is debated on Commons. 2724: 2535:

the article on the assumption that it was an unreferenced BLP, or at the very least a

2314:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2011/02/Category:Stamps

4106: 3835: 3827: 3575: 3544: 3487: 3433: 3406: 3405:

am reverting these changes as concerns Switzerland and ask Philafrenzy to conduct a

3359: 3293: 3282: 2985: 2772: 2582: 2544: 2528: 2412: 897: 893: 889: 165: 161: 3090:

I didn't understand that your suggestion is only for a category. That makes sense.

2977:

Debate on Commons: former communist countries' stamp copyright as "official symbols"

1451:(Optional) Subject is a disambiguation or redirect page, residing in article space. 1357:

I have been involved in a few projects assessment setup, the main one being for the

4283: 4269: 3956: 3786: 3091: 3062: 3016: 2752: 2677: 2658: 2520: 2358: 2073: 1728: 1567: 1502: 1366: 1340: 1229: 1195: 997: 833: 512: 399: 2519:

I was wandering along the road of unreferenced BLPs earlier today and came across

1166:

which must be considered one of the most important philately objects of all time.

176:

disagreed and suggested that we discuss it here. Comments please.... Thank you. --

3785:

is a bit of a mismash, with some redlinks that just go to arbitrary phrases (eg/

3007:

One or more articles relating to this project have been nominated to be a future

2801:, and might share a common category with similar problems in other areas such as 2411:

While all contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, content or articles may be

3267: 3050:

Whether to include revenue stamps in the regular country articles was discussed

2650: 2154: 2029: 1055: 916: 803: 616: 190: 46:

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

2953:

list, we have enough list-o-mania as it is. I note that the more generic term

3648: 3579: 2672:

Discussion resulted in rejection of proposed change. See archived discussion

2252: 2210: 2196: 2139: 2047: 1896: 1744: 1321: 1211: 1167: 1122: 901: 430: 139: 2495:

Yes it does but Telegrams are not generally included in philately apart from

2435:

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing

1790:

seems like no problem at all, similar to the way we cannot list the complete

1531:(d) Such use is not competitive with the business of the copyright owner; and 4427: 3666: 3620: 2312:

There's a discussion regarding categorization of stamps in the Commons (see

1093:

we have developed this page in conjunction with curators of the collections.

3167:

commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gul tre skilling banco.jpg

1371:

Knowledge's Version 1.0 Editorial Team's Release Criteria topic importance

2728: 2578: 2540: 1760: 1046:

That's not what the notability guidelines for lists says. It just covers

3619:

What we arrive here is a definition discussion I guess. For me (and for

4327:

Talk:2012 Olympics gold post boxes in the United Kingdom#Requested move

1361:

where we developed some rather decent importance criteria you can find

3035:

philately embraces a lot more than just postage stamps. Any thoughts?

2316:), that might be of interest to WikiProject Philately participants. -- 2134:) about wider engagement with the philately community, please drop me 4282:

Sorry Stan, just part of the risky life of being a stamp collector.

3834:), or what proportion of "normal" issues we should have articles on ( 3165:

Did anyone else notice this image is a featured picture candidate at

1847: 1807: 1688: 1185:

The issue of importance ratings of philatelic articles was discussed

290:

a country, however, are unlikely ever to justify a separate article.

160:

The article is about the Postage stamps and postal history of India.

1387:

The article is of priority or importance, regardless of its quality

3808:

BL Philatelic Department collection - I know, I did most of them.)

1949:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of people on stamps of Hungary

4215: 1806:. While Scott does not seem to have been completely successful in 4325:

This has been requested to be moved to another title. Please see

2042:

Perhaps the article creator might benefit from the article being

2024:

On a similar note, someone might want to do something with this:

4483:

I found one of the Northern Ireland overprinted stamps which is

2958: 1337:

a table of criteria for rating importance of philatelic articles

1226:

a table of criteria for rating importance of philatelic articles

1054:

left out List of X of Y because we could not reach a consensus.

224:

I have been meaning to bring this up. I think the common title

4190:

commons:Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review

2976: 565:

People may want to get involved in the deletion discussion of

25: 3925:

As to the specific collection articles, I'll be in touch :-)

3338:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories

2615:

not have articles. A few months back I added some content to

3104:

OK. I will await further comments before taking any action.

2715: 2382: 2251:

across many forums and circular re-postings of the article.

2192: 1439:(Optional) Subject has no real significance to the project. 2392:

List of birds on stamps of Aden Protectorate States, Seiyun

2378:

List of birds on stamps of Aden Protectorate States, Seiyun

2153:

Being in India, bit difficult to help but great going Fae!

2138:

with a brief note about how you would like to help. Thanks

2070:

List of birds on stamps of Aden Protectorate States, Seiyun

2026:

List of birds on stamps of Aden Protectorate States, Seiyun

1692: 1313: 4386:

http://familycrest-rings.com/images/crests/die4-large.jpg

3842:) - what are the project's normal notability thresholds? 2596:

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/jsp/db/board.jsp?id=45870

1339:, but never finished it. Anyone is welcome to edit it. 1228:, but never finished it. Anyone is welcome to edit it. 4321:

2012 Olympics gold post boxes in the United Kingdom move

4097:

I have made a formal proposal to rename the new article

3186:

commons:Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media

1556:

without the prior permission of Stanley Gibbons Limited.

846:

Notability is a requirement for inclusion in lists, see

4188:

Members, please be aware of the progress being made at

3184:

This is now a featured image and hes been added to the

2982:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamp of Moldova 012.jpg

2853: 2453:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

2046:

until they can research and cite some quality sources?

1365:

that shows several examples as guidance for assessors.

1164:

File:Proof sheet of one penny stamps Stamp Act 1765.jpg

376:

with a similar new category which is a sub-category of

3687:

a particular country, which we have never had before.

2725:

Postal Service in Statue of Liberty stamp photo mix-up

2531:

though he would be quite long in the tooth by now. I

2418:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

3009:

United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month

3001:

United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month

433:

is probably the best source for revenues literature.

364:

There are now three 'Revenue stamps of...' articles:

4212:

Postage stamps and postal history of New South Wales

2636:

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#re_collectables

3661:I think that we are getting confusion here between 3635:cat is much more appropriate (IMO). In addition, a 2998: 2122:

Meeting with British Library Philatelic Collections

2072:is unlikely to be useful because the creating user 1192:

Board of Inland Revenue Stamping Department Archive

1160:

Board of Inland Revenue Stamping Department Archive

4192:. Things appear to be moving along quite quickly. 3959:would work - does that look practical as a model? 3875:I think I misphrased that - when I say praised it 2824:Well, such a category exists in French Knowledge ( 883:takes a bit of interpretation. I have an essay at 320:IMO, concurring with Maidonian, "the common title 240:, then by reign/century etc until up to date then 4384:Thanks, like this except better and for a stamp: 2747:Examples of articles that would qualify include 2353:I removed the proposed deletion. See comment on 1464:but we should agree on the examples to be used. 1397:Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia 760:Deletion discussion: Category: Stamp collections 120:Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions 3336:Nope - flatness is a disruptive proposal - see 1545:A extract from the copyright notice in my 2004 1110:Category:British Library Philatelic collections 937:The Australian Commonwealth Specialists' Guide, 3400:I was referred here after Philafrenzy blanked 1990:Knowledge:WikiProject Philately/Article alerts 491:some resources and post it for others to use. 2935:List of members of the Universal Postal Union 2927:List of members of the Universal Postal Union 2231:Anybody up for a little hoax investigation? 1808:this 1999 Krause 'v' Scott settlement opinion 1689:this 1999 Krause 'v' Scott settlement opinion 8: 4586:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Stamps 2594:When this came up before I found mention at 2575:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Steve Dagora 2515:Notability discussions on subjects of stamps 1759:In terms of their permission, the point of " 4128:German stamps are not in the public domain! 3409:prior to making such wide-ranging changes. 2826:fr:Catégorie:Erreur ou variété philatélique 2692:Why no criticism subsection in "Philately"? 1992:that list such articles for deletion, etc. 1619:could be considered as a such violation. -- 1258:Postage stamps and postal history of Hawaii 1247:Postage stamps and postal history of Hawaii 2712:Suggested category for Philatelic mistakes 1427:Subject is mainly of specialist interest. 1378: 546:may be of interest to other philatelists. 155:Postage stamps and postal history of India 2832:). It might not hurt to have one here. -- 2100:and using that as a basis for expansion. 1407:Subject contributes a depth of knowledge 1013:Postage stamps and postal history of Fiji 248:, which is roughly what I did when I did 2961:, perhaps that would be a better split? 3709:British Library collaboration - part II 2733:Category:Philatelic fakes and forgeries 2424:notice, but please explain why in your 1314:#British Library Philatelic Collections 1252:I added several images to the category 965:Recent change to WP:Notability re Lists 848:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people 595:List of people on stamps of New Zealand 128:this project's listing in one big table 4370:I'll ask if we've got any upstairs... 3643:cat structure for articles about e.g. 3402:Category:Postage stamps of Switzerland 3205:British Library Philatelic Collections 2830:ru:Категория:Ошибки на почтовых марках 2797:and probably other categories such as 1312:(This is copied this from the section 1256:and suggest creating a new article on 1084:British Library Philatelic Collections 322:Postage stamps and postal history of X 226:Postage stamps and postal history of X 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1549:Ireland specialised catalogue states: 1260:. Can anybody take a lead on that? -- 1091:uk:chapter:Editathon, British Library 228:is wrong, it should have simply been 7: 4411:- I've dropped it into the article. 4001:switching back to their old ways ;-) 1802:seems substantial and does not seem 1725:List of United States airmail stamps 1617:List of United States airmail stamps 1564:List of United States airmail stamps 1417:Subject fills in more minor details 567:List of people on stamps of Abkhazia 509:American Philatelic Research Library 96:The following discussion is closed. 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philately 2785:1904 Pictorial 4d Lake Taupo invert 2617:List of people on stamps of Hungary 2233:1847 China Japan Gold Traders Stamp 743:List of people on stamps of Ireland 4603:Gave my opinion on the talk page. 3922:role for providing material there? 3716:I've recently started work as the 2735:but no apparent category such as 2413:deleted for any of several reasons 2398:because of the following concern: 1846:According to the link, there is (" 1792:The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time 24: 3121:I have been bold and created the 2731:prompted me to notice there is a 1254:commons:Category:Stamps of Hawaii 864:List of people on stamps of Samoa 324:is wrong" and should be moved to 4634:The discussion above is closed. 2925:is such a term. We already have 2807:gets the proverbial ball rolling 2777:Jamaica 1sh inverted-frame error 2098:List of birds on stamps of Yemen 2006:Thanks, have watch listed that. 1562:By way of illustration, I think 1194:is not clearly inappropriate. 1030:List of people on stamps of Fiji 816:Knowledge:Notability (philately) 787:I have added a the following to 599:List of people on stamps of Fiji 544:This Commons deletion discussion 29: 3633:Stamps and postal history of... 3371:It's just a request not to add 3139:list of people on the stamps of 423:commons:Category:Revenue stamps 4573:13:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 4558:18:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC) 4527:13:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 4512:13:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 4497:13:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 4473:12:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 4461:Government of Ireland Act 1920 4455:12:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 4440:11:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 4421:11:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 4397:10:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC) 4380:09:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC) 4365:09:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC) 4307:20:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC) 2917:was turned into a redirect to 1: 4344:20:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC) 4341:eating shoes for just 6 years 3100:13:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 3086:11:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 3071:09:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 3045:13:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC) 2793:It would be a subcategory of 2527:is debated, per policy he is 2470:21:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 2367:05:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 2348:03:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 2326:13:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2298:01:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 2276:23:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 2261:23:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 2245:23:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 1509:2007 US Specialised Catlogue: 1482:Catalog numbers as references 579:04:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 556:23:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC) 521:16:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC) 501:16:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC) 470:10:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC) 443:05:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC) 408:16:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC) 390:03:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC) 110:I have created together with 4220:New South Wales 1855 2 pence 3697:12:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 3657:12:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 3645:Philately in the Netherlands 3615:11:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 3588:11:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 3569:07:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 3551:05:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 3534:19:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) 3515:06:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 3503:19:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC) 3481:16:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC) 3467:15:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC) 3455:13:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC) 3440:12:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC) 3422:11:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC) 3396:14:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 3381:10:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 3366:10:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 3328:10:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 3307:09:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 3289:09:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 3276:02:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 3258:I request you to go through 3249:00:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 3221:01:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC) 3198:01:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC) 3155:22:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 3030:Postage stamps of X category 3025:19:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC) 2828:) and in Russian Knowledge ( 2219:15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2205:14:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2185:14:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2163:15:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 2148:14:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 2110:19:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC) 2091:14:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC) 2056:11:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC) 2038:10:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC) 2016:06:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2002:05:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 1980:05:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 1964:20:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1930:11:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 1920:05:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 1905:18:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1884:18:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1865:17:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1838:16:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1819:16:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1777:14:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1753:11:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1737:07:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1705:05:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1658:03:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1644:02:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1629:01:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1610:00:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1595:23:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC) 1580:22:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC) 1495:16:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC) 1474:05:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1349:13:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 1330:13:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 1300:14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 1286:11:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 1270:23:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 1238:13:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 1220:13:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 1204:12:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 1176:11:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 1154:classifications rather than 1146:11:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 1131:08:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 1103:12:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 1075:21:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 1040:04:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 1024:04:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 1006:14:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 983:14:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 948:03:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 930:14:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 910:07:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 876:05:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 858:03:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 842:22:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 826:20:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 778:11:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 756:19:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 725:19:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 686:05:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 671:22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 653:07:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 639:04:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 625:04:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 350:10:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC) 335:07:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 326:Stamps and postal history... 300:22:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 285:21:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 262:18:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 230:Stamps and postal history... 216:16:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 199:16:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 183:16:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 153:"Revenue stamps" section in 148:21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC) 4629:03:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC) 4613:00:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC) 4598:22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC) 4292:01:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 4278:01:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 4263:00:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 4249:23:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 4234:19:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 4109:. Your views are requested 4030:National Philatelic Society 3179:05:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 2994:12:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 2457:allows discussion to reach 2438:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 2421:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 2079:Notability_of topical lists 1501:systems can be regarded as 1308:Article importance criteria 611:09:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC) 106:WikiProject cleanup listing 4653: 4563:I will have a go at this. 4146:01:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC) 3486:request their deletion at 3345:to ask for sub categories 3226:Philately of... categories 2842:03:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC) 2819:20:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 2737:Category:Philatelic errors 2707:01:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC) 2686:13:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 2667:23:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC) 2629:08:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 2609:08:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 2587:02:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC) 2565:04:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC) 2549:00:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC) 2355:Talk:List of stamp forgers 1763:" is that use can be made 4202:18:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC) 4176:01:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 4162:22:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 4123:04:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC) 2509:10:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 2490:08:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 2475:commerical post companies 2443:proposed deletion process 2193:http://www.wikibhasha.org 1988:Actually we already have 814:would be useful, perhaps 584:Lists of people on stamps 136:the index of WikiProjects 4636:Please do not modify it. 4076:19:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 4062:19:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 4047:18:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 4034:Royal Philatelic Society 4024:15:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 3996:13:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 3969:21:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC) 3950:18:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC) 3935:14:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC) 3917:22:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC) 3893:22:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC) 3871:20:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC) 3852:19:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC) 3818:18:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC) 3799:15:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC) 3765:18:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 3743:14:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 2971:13:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC) 2947:20:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC) 2901:13:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC) 2882:01:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC) 1788:Bluenose (postage stamp) 1108:A number of articles in 990:List of bonsai on stamps 766:deletion discussion here 659:list of people on stamps 98:Please do not modify it. 3840:King George V Seahorses 3718:Wikipedian in Residence 3678:and the pre-stamp era, 2931:List of postal entities 2919:List of postal entities 2913:Did anyone notice that 2866:14:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC) 2795:Category:Postage stamps 2430:the article's talk page 2308:A discussion at Commons 994:List of ships on stamps 4221: 4009:targeting one of them 3783:List of postage stamps 3733:I can do to help you! 3727:philatelic collections 2720: 2387: 1559: 1542: 4219: 4089: 3576:Bold, Revert, Discuss 2923:Postal administration 2915:Postal administration 2909:Postal administration 2781:Pagsanjan Falls stamp 2765:Inverted Head 4 Annas 2749:Baden 9 Kreuzer error 2719: 2455:articles for deletion 2396:proposed for deletion 2386: 2332:List of stamp forgers 1552: 1512: 1150:I am questioning the 768:about this category. 380:. Any views? Thanks. 42:of past discussions. 4297:different plates... 4132:Have others noticed 3623:), Philately is the 3123:Philately by country 2761:Inverted Dendermonde 2741:postage stamp errors 1727:may be a problem. 1011:this and perhaps in 812:notability guideline 168:, so IMO this is an 124:the tool's wiki page 4590:Sophie means wisdom 4445:you think so much? 4099:Aurochs' head issue 3629:collecting/studying 3574:things happen. Per 3125:category and three 2645:Knowledge is not a 2132:St. Pancras station 1568:copyright violation 1359:Ireland WikiProject 1116:have been rated as 1114:Fletcher Collection 798:Knowledge is not a 561:Deletion discussion 539:Deletion discussion 4222: 4103:Bull's Head stamps 3161:Treskilling Yellow 2789:Treskilling Yellow 2723:Headlines such as 2721: 2649:nor a database of 2525:Schrodinger status 2447:deletion processes 2388: 1335:I started work on 1224:I started work on 802:nor a database of 99: 4134:this major change 3680:postal stationery 3567: 3501: 3420: 3135:revenue stamps of 3131:postage stamps of 2957:is subsumed into 2757:HMS Glasgow error 2405:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 2374:Proposed deletion 1853:sweat of the brow 1814:copyrightable. -- 1455: 1454: 246:Cinderella stamps 172:in this article. 97: 92: 91: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4644: 4111:on the talk page 3663:Stamp Collecting 3566: 3564: 3557: 3500: 3498: 3491: 3419: 3417: 3410: 3127:Philately of ... 2999:Nomination as a 2803:Mint-made errors 2739:for articles on 2497:telegraph stamps 2440: 2439: 2423: 2422: 2385: 2170:Stamp collecting 1503:common knowledge 1489:User:Fred Bauder 1379: 1071: 1063: 1058: 1034:User:Fred Bauder 1018:User:Fred Bauder 942:User:Fred Bauder 852:User:Fred Bauder 820:User:Fred Bauder 332: 180: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4652: 4651: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4581: 4542: 4353: 4350:Die (philately) 4323: 4214: 4130: 4095: 3905:Stuart Rossiter 3711: 3641:Philately of... 3637:Philately of... 3560: 3558: 3494: 3492: 3413: 3411: 3347:to be not added 3228: 3208: 3163: 3032: 3005: 2979: 2911: 2850: 2834:Michael Romanov 2714: 2694: 2647:stamp catalogue 2639: 2517: 2477: 2451:speedy deletion 2437: 2436: 2420: 2419: 2383: 2381: 2340:Michael Romanov 2335: 2310: 2229: 2173: 2124: 1956:Michael Romanov 1952: 1621:Michael Romanov 1547:Stanley Gibbons 1484: 1310: 1292:Michael Romanov 1262:Michael Romanov 1250: 1089:As part of the 1087: 1072: 1067: 1061: 1056: 967: 800:stamp catalogue 785: 762: 741:In the past in 586: 563: 541: 330: 178: 158: 108: 102: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4650: 4648: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4616: 4615: 4580: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4550:MatthewVanitas 4541: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4457: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4352: 4347: 4322: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4213: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4129: 4126: 4094: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4006: 4002: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3923: 3880: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3823: 3774: 3768: 3767: 3751: 3750: 3721:with editors. 3710: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3676:postal history 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3383: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3331: 3330: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3264:classification 3256: 3227: 3224: 3207: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3162: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3142: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3031: 3028: 3004: 2997: 2978: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2955:postal service 2910: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2885: 2884: 2849: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2811:67.100.125.102 2799:Category:Error 2769:Inverted Jenny 2713: 2710: 2699:70.180.125.253 2693: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2638: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2568: 2567: 2529:presumed alive 2516: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2476: 2473: 2461:for deletion. 2441:will stop the 2409: 2408: 2380: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2334: 2329: 2309: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2228: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2172: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2123: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 1983: 1982: 1951: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1927:Moonriddengirl 1887: 1886: 1868: 1867: 1862:Moonriddengirl 1841: 1840: 1822: 1821: 1816:Moonriddengirl 1804:transformative 1780: 1779: 1774:Moonriddengirl 1756: 1755: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1551: 1550: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1511: 1510: 1483: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1453: 1452: 1449: 1441: 1440: 1437: 1429: 1428: 1425: 1419: 1418: 1415: 1409: 1408: 1405: 1399: 1398: 1395: 1389: 1388: 1385: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1352: 1351: 1309: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1276:Created stub. 1249: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1086: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1066: 1044: 1043: 1042: 966: 963: 961: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 951: 950: 885:User:Fæ/Alumni 878: 808: 807: 784: 781: 761: 758: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 585: 582: 562: 559: 540: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 413: 412: 411: 410: 378:revenue stamps 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 309: 308: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 267: 266: 265: 264: 242:Revenue stamps 219: 218: 202: 201: 166:Postage stamps 162:Revenue stamps 157: 151: 107: 104: 103: 94: 93: 90: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4649: 4637: 4630: 4626: 4622: 4618: 4617: 4614: 4610: 4606: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4595: 4591: 4587: 4578: 4574: 4570: 4566: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4555: 4551: 4547: 4540: 4536: 4528: 4524: 4520: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4509: 4505: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4482: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4437: 4433: 4429: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4398: 4394: 4390: 4387: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4351: 4348: 4346: 4345: 4342: 4339: 4335: 4332: 4328: 4320: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4260: 4256: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4218: 4211: 4203: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4127: 4125: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4100: 4093: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4066:Sounds good. 4065: 4064: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4044: 4040: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4021: 4017: 4012: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3984: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3932: 3928: 3924: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3901: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3890: 3886: 3881: 3878: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3868: 3864: 3859: 3853: 3849: 3845: 3841: 3837: 3836:Machin Series 3833: 3829: 3828:Inverted Swan 3824: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3807: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3784: 3779: 3775: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3753: 3752: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3730: 3728: 3722: 3719: 3714: 3708: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3681: 3677: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3603: 3589: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3565: 3563: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3549: 3546: 3541: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3522: 3516: 3513: 3510: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3499: 3497: 3489: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3465: 3462: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3438: 3435: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3423: 3418: 3416: 3408: 3403: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3384: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3364: 3361: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3339: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3316: 3315: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3295: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3287: 3284: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3236: 3235: 3231: 3225: 3223: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3206: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3143: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3059: 3058: 3053: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3029: 3027: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3002: 2996: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2908: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2791: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2773:Inverted Swan 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2745: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2718: 2711: 2709: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2655: 2654: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2637: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2601:Eclecticology 2597: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2474: 2472: 2471: 2468: 2466: 2465: 2464:Modest Genius 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2433: 2431: 2427: 2416: 2414: 2407: 2406: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2397: 2393: 2379: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2333: 2330: 2328: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2307: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2227:Possible hoax 2226: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2171: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2121: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1950: 1947: 1931: 1928: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1893: 1889: 1888: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1866: 1863: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1820: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1778: 1775: 1771: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1757: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1560: 1558: 1557: 1548: 1544: 1543: 1541: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1508: 1504: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1493: 1490: 1481: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1450: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1438: 1436: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1426: 1424: 1421: 1420: 1416: 1414: 1411: 1410: 1406: 1404: 1401: 1400: 1396: 1394: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1384: 1381: 1380: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1317: 1315: 1307: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1290:Thank you! -- 1289: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1248: 1245: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1188: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1085: 1082: 1076: 1073: 1070: 1064: 1059: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1038: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1022: 1019: 1014: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1003: 999: 995: 991: 987: 986: 985: 984: 980: 976: 972: 964: 962: 949: 946: 943: 938: 933: 932: 931: 927: 923: 918: 913: 912: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 891: 886: 882: 879: 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 860: 859: 856: 853: 849: 845: 844: 843: 839: 835: 830: 829: 828: 827: 824: 821: 817: 813: 805: 801: 797: 794: 793: 792: 790: 782: 780: 779: 775: 771: 767: 759: 757: 753: 749: 744: 726: 722: 718: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 687: 683: 679: 674: 673: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 655: 654: 650: 646: 642: 641: 640: 636: 632: 628: 627: 626: 622: 618: 614: 613: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 587: 583: 581: 580: 576: 572: 568: 560: 558: 557: 553: 549: 545: 538: 522: 518: 514: 510: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 498: 494: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 471: 467: 463: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 444: 440: 436: 432: 431:John Barefoot 428: 424: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 409: 405: 401: 397: 394:I agree with 393: 392: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 367: 363: 351: 347: 343: 338: 337: 336: 333: 327: 323: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 301: 297: 293: 288: 287: 286: 282: 278: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 234:Pre-stamp era 231: 227: 223: 222: 221: 220: 217: 213: 209: 204: 203: 200: 196: 192: 187: 186: 185: 184: 181: 175: 171: 167: 163: 156: 152: 150: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 132:by categories 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 105: 101: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4635: 4584:help out at 4582: 4579:Help request 4543: 4354: 4340: 4324: 4268:question. 4223: 4131: 4107:Bull's Heads 4096: 4092:Bull's Heads 4091: 4011:specifically 4010: 3876: 3806:every single 3805: 3787:Red Army man 3777: 3731: 3723: 3715: 3712: 3684: 3670: 3628: 3624: 3561: 3539: 3495: 3414: 3372: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3344: 3237: 3233: 3232: 3229: 3209: 3164: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3056: 3055: 3033: 3006: 2980: 2922: 2912: 2851: 2792: 2753:Gronchi Rosa 2746: 2722: 2695: 2656: 2651:collectables 2642: 2641: 2640: 2593: 2573:AFD here at 2521:Steve Dagora 2518: 2482:65.95.15.144 2478: 2463: 2449:exist. The 2445:, but other 2434: 2426:edit summary 2417: 2410: 2402: 2390:The article 2389: 2336: 2311: 2288:Good catch. 2230: 2174: 2125: 1953: 1891: 1856: 1811: 1795: 1769: 1764: 1721: 1586: 1554: 1553: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1513: 1485: 1444: 1432: 1382: 1318: 1311: 1251: 1184: 1155: 1151: 1117: 1112:such as the 1088: 1068: 1052:specifically 1051: 968: 960: 936: 810:I suggest a 809: 804:collectables 795: 786: 763: 590: 564: 542: 377: 325: 321: 245: 241: 238:First stamps 237: 233: 229: 225: 159: 109: 95: 75: 43: 37: 4621:Daveosaurus 4605:Philafrenzy 4565:Philafrenzy 4519:Philafrenzy 4504:Andrew Gray 4489:Philafrenzy 4465:Andrew Gray 4447:Philafrenzy 4432:Philafrenzy 4428:overprinted 4413:Andrew Gray 4389:Philafrenzy 4372:Andrew Gray 4357:Philafrenzy 4255:Philafrenzy 4226:Philafrenzy 4154:Philafrenzy 4068:Philafrenzy 4054:Andrew Gray 4039:Philafrenzy 4016:Andrew Gray 3988:Philafrenzy 3961:Andrew Gray 3942:Philafrenzy 3927:Andrew Gray 3909:Philafrenzy 3885:Andrew Gray 3863:Philafrenzy 3844:Andrew Gray 3832:Red Mercury 3810:Philafrenzy 3791:Andrew Gray 3735:Andrew Gray 3689:Philafrenzy 3671:traditional 3607:Philafrenzy 3526:Philafrenzy 3473:Philafrenzy 3447:Philafrenzy 3373:unnecessary 3320:Daveosaurus 3299:Philafrenzy 3260:WP:CATEGORY 3241:Philafrenzy 3213:Philafrenzy 3147:Philafrenzy 3106:Philafrenzy 3078:Philafrenzy 3037:Philafrenzy 2874:Daveosaurus 2848:New website 2621:Daveosaurus 2501:Philafrenzy 2318:Л.П. Джепко 2268:Daveosaurus 2177:Philafrenzy 2102:Daveosaurus 2077:discussion 2008:Daveosaurus 1972:Daveosaurus 1912:Daveosaurus 1636:Daveosaurus 1373:as follows: 1095:Harrypotter 917:Penny Black 868:Daveosaurus 764:There is a 678:Daveosaurus 645:Daveosaurus 603:Daveosaurus 425:created by 331:Redtigerxyz 179:Redtigerxyz 112:Smallman12q 36:This is an 4588:? Thanks. 4537:Review at 4090:Maldavian 3562:Sandstein 3496:Sandstein 3415:Sandstein 3355:visibility 2643:Catalogue. 2533:WP:PRODded 2128:WP:GLAM/BL 2068:Userfying 1152:importance 1050:and X. It 975:Mike Cline 971:WP:NOTESAL 796:Catalogue. 208:Mike Cline 206:extreme.-- 87:Archive 10 4194:ww2censor 4138:ww2censor 4115:ww2censor 4028:Both the 3883:my part. 3667:Philately 3625:hobby/job 3621:Philately 3543:up to... 3190:ww2censor 3171:ww2censor 3003:candidate 2939:ww2censor 2854:StampData 2459:consensus 2394:has been 2290:ww2censor 2083:ww2censor 1994:ww2censor 1876:Maidonian 1830:Maidonian 1697:ww2censor 1650:Maidonian 1602:Maidonian 1572:ww2censor 1466:ww2censor 1367:Ecphora's 1316:, above) 1278:Maidonian 1138:Maidonian 1048:List of X 770:Maidonian 748:ww2censor 631:ww2censor 571:ww2censor 548:ww2censor 493:ww2censor 462:Maidonian 435:ww2censor 427:Maidonian 396:Maidonian 382:Maidonian 342:Maidonian 292:Maidonian 254:Maidonian 174:ww2censor 116:WolterBot 82:Archive 9 76:Archive 8 70:Archive 7 65:Archive 6 60:Archive 5 4032:and the 3540:flatness 2986:Sebjarod 2729:BBC News 2537:WP:BLP1E 2136:an email 2044:userfied 1761:fair use 881:WP:NLIST 170:WP:UNDUE 164:are not 4284:Ecphora 4270:Ecphora 3900:Uruguay 3092:Ecphora 3063:Ecphora 3061:means. 3057:Postage 3017:Kumioko 2678:Ecphora 2659:Collect 2359:Ecphora 2074:JPPINTO 1855:". The 1849:domain. 1765:without 1729:Ecphora 1341:Ecphora 1230:Ecphora 1196:Ecphora 1156:quality 998:Ecphora 834:Ecphora 591:country 513:Ecphora 400:Ecphora 366:Bahrain 250:Bahrain 122:). See 39:archive 4331:Simply 3488:WP:CFD 3407:WP:RFC 3351:volume 3268:AshLin 3188:page. 2428:or on 2155:AshLin 2030:Mika1h 1794:, but 1587:Yoenit 1434:Bottom 1069:Jinnai 1028:As to 898:WP:LSC 894:WP:BIO 890:WP:GNG 617:AshLin 191:AshLin 4334:south 3957:WP:RX 3778:don't 3649:L.tak 3580:L.tak 3512:garra 3464:garra 2933:with 2727:from 1770:sound 1507:Scott 374:Italy 370:India 244:then 140:Svick 16:< 4625:talk 4609:talk 4594:talk 4569:talk 4554:talk 4523:talk 4508:talk 4493:talk 4485:here 4469:talk 4451:talk 4436:talk 4417:talk 4393:talk 4376:talk 4361:talk 4336:.... 4303:talk 4299:Stan 4288:talk 4274:talk 4259:talk 4245:talk 4241:Stan 4230:talk 4198:talk 4172:talk 4168:Stan 4158:talk 4142:talk 4119:talk 4072:talk 4058:talk 4043:talk 4020:talk 3992:talk 3965:talk 3946:talk 3931:talk 3913:talk 3889:talk 3867:talk 3848:talk 3814:talk 3795:talk 3761:talk 3757:Stan 3739:talk 3713:Hi! 3693:talk 3665:and 3653:talk 3611:talk 3584:talk 3548:Suro 3545:Satu 3530:talk 3509:Gnan 3477:talk 3461:Gnan 3451:talk 3437:Suro 3434:Satu 3392:talk 3388:Stan 3377:talk 3363:Suro 3360:Satu 3324:talk 3303:talk 3294:Satu 3286:Suro 3283:Satu 3272:talk 3245:talk 3217:talk 3194:talk 3175:talk 3151:talk 3137:and 3110:talk 3096:talk 3082:talk 3067:talk 3052:here 3041:talk 3021:talk 3015:. -- 3013:here 2990:talk 2967:talk 2963:Stan 2959:mail 2943:talk 2897:talk 2893:Stan 2878:talk 2862:talk 2858:Stan 2838:talk 2815:talk 2703:talk 2682:talk 2674:here 2663:talk 2625:talk 2605:talk 2583:talk 2561:talk 2557:Stan 2545:talk 2505:talk 2486:talk 2363:talk 2344:talk 2322:talk 2294:talk 2272:talk 2257:talk 2241:talk 2237:Stan 2215:talk 2201:talk 2181:talk 2159:talk 2144:talk 2106:talk 2087:talk 2052:talk 2034:talk 2028:. -- 2012:talk 1998:talk 1976:talk 1960:talk 1916:talk 1901:talk 1880:talk 1857:real 1834:talk 1800:this 1749:talk 1733:talk 1701:talk 1693:here 1654:talk 1640:talk 1625:talk 1606:talk 1591:talk 1576:talk 1492:Talk 1470:talk 1462:here 1403:High 1383:Need 1363:here 1345:talk 1326:talk 1296:talk 1282:talk 1266:talk 1234:talk 1216:talk 1200:talk 1187:here 1172:talk 1142:talk 1127:talk 1099:talk 1037:Talk 1021:Talk 1002:talk 979:talk 945:Talk 926:talk 922:Stan 906:talk 892:(or 872:talk 855:Talk 838:talk 823:Talk 774:talk 752:talk 721:talk 717:Stan 682:talk 667:talk 663:Stan 649:talk 635:talk 621:talk 607:talk 597:and 575:talk 552:talk 517:talk 497:talk 466:talk 439:talk 404:talk 386:talk 372:and 346:talk 296:talk 281:talk 277:Stan 258:talk 212:talk 195:talk 144:talk 134:and 4105:or 4101:to 3627:of 3353:or 2809:. 2579:SDY 2577:. 2541:SDY 2539:. 2376:of 2357:. 1892:one 1812:not 1796:can 1423:Low 1413:Mid 1393:Top 1118:Low 992:or 130:or 4627:) 4611:) 4596:) 4571:) 4556:) 4548:. 4525:) 4510:) 4495:) 4471:) 4453:) 4438:) 4419:) 4395:) 4378:) 4363:) 4338:.. 4329:. 4305:) 4290:) 4276:) 4261:) 4247:) 4232:) 4200:) 4174:) 4160:) 4144:) 4121:) 4113:. 4074:) 4060:) 4045:) 4022:) 3994:) 3967:) 3948:) 3933:) 3915:) 3891:) 3877:to 3869:) 3850:) 3838:, 3830:, 3816:) 3797:) 3763:) 3741:) 3695:) 3685:of 3655:) 3613:) 3586:) 3532:) 3479:) 3453:) 3394:) 3379:) 3326:) 3305:) 3274:) 3266:. 3247:) 3219:) 3196:) 3177:) 3169:? 3153:) 3133:, 3098:) 3084:) 3069:) 3043:) 3023:) 2992:) 2969:) 2945:) 2937:? 2899:) 2880:) 2864:) 2840:) 2817:) 2787:, 2783:, 2779:, 2775:, 2771:, 2767:, 2763:, 2759:, 2755:, 2751:, 2705:) 2684:) 2676:. 2665:) 2627:) 2607:) 2585:) 2563:) 2547:) 2507:) 2499:. 2488:) 2432:. 2415:. 2365:) 2346:) 2338:-- 2324:) 2296:) 2274:) 2259:) 2253:Fæ 2243:) 2217:) 2211:Fæ 2203:) 2197:Fæ 2183:) 2161:) 2146:) 2140:Fæ 2108:) 2089:) 2081:. 2054:) 2048:Fæ 2036:) 2014:) 2000:) 1978:) 1962:) 1918:) 1903:) 1897:Fæ 1882:) 1860:-- 1836:) 1751:) 1745:Fæ 1735:) 1703:) 1695:. 1656:) 1642:) 1627:) 1608:) 1593:) 1578:) 1472:) 1446:NA 1347:) 1328:) 1322:Fæ 1298:) 1284:) 1272:. 1268:) 1236:) 1218:) 1212:Fæ 1202:) 1174:) 1168:Fæ 1144:) 1129:) 1123:Fæ 1101:) 1004:) 996:. 981:) 928:) 908:) 902:Fæ 874:) 850:. 840:) 818:. 791:: 776:) 754:) 723:) 684:) 669:) 651:) 637:) 623:) 609:) 577:) 569:. 554:) 519:) 499:) 468:) 441:) 406:) 388:) 368:, 348:) 298:) 283:) 260:) 252:. 236:, 214:) 197:) 146:) 138:. 126:, 4623:( 4607:( 4592:( 4567:( 4552:( 4521:( 4506:( 4491:( 4467:( 4449:( 4434:( 4415:( 4391:( 4374:( 4359:( 4301:( 4286:( 4272:( 4257:( 4243:( 4228:( 4196:( 4170:( 4156:( 4140:( 4117:( 4070:( 4056:( 4041:( 4018:( 3990:( 3963:( 3944:( 3929:( 3911:( 3887:( 3865:( 3846:( 3826:( 3812:( 3793:( 3759:( 3737:( 3691:( 3651:( 3609:( 3582:( 3528:( 3475:( 3449:( 3390:( 3322:( 3301:( 3270:( 3243:( 3215:( 3192:( 3173:( 3149:( 3112:) 3108:( 3094:( 3080:( 3065:( 3039:( 3019:( 2988:( 2965:( 2941:( 2895:( 2876:( 2860:( 2836:( 2813:( 2701:( 2680:( 2661:( 2623:( 2603:( 2581:( 2559:( 2543:( 2503:( 2484:( 2361:( 2342:( 2320:( 2292:( 2270:( 2255:( 2239:( 2213:( 2199:( 2179:( 2157:( 2142:( 2104:( 2085:( 2050:( 2032:( 2010:( 1996:( 1974:( 1958:( 1914:( 1899:( 1878:( 1832:( 1747:( 1731:( 1699:( 1652:( 1638:( 1623:( 1604:( 1589:( 1574:( 1468:( 1343:( 1324:( 1294:( 1280:( 1264:( 1232:( 1214:( 1198:( 1170:( 1140:( 1125:( 1097:( 1062:内 1057:陣 1000:( 977:( 924:( 904:( 870:( 836:( 772:( 750:( 719:( 680:( 665:( 647:( 633:( 619:( 605:( 573:( 550:( 515:( 495:( 464:( 437:( 402:( 384:( 344:( 294:( 279:( 256:( 210:( 193:( 142:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 8 - Knowledge

Index