Talk:Definitive stamp

2007 posts
I find it strange that this article defines definitive series in terms of the range of values. While many definitive series fulfill this criterion, there are some that do not. For example, the Australian "endangered species" and "kangaroo and koalas" series only included the 45c rate, but no one would hesitate in calling them definitives. The USA $2 bobcat was not part of a series but a single definitive stamp that was used to satisfy a particular postal need.

All previous literature that I have read defines definitives as stamps that are reprinted as often as necessary to meet postal need, rather than commemoratives which usually only have a single print run.

Raichu2 12:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point! Your definition is better I think - is there an example source to cite? L.N. Williams defines them as stamps issued for "normally permanent use", and as "not provisional or commemorative", which is pretty broad. BTW, Scott puts the bobcat into a "flora and fauna issue 1990-1995", dunno if that was USPS or just their own idea. Stan 14:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to draw attention to an apparent inconsistency fwiw. I don't know anything about the subject, so this is how it comes across to the untutored: "The highest value of the series is generally quite large, typically from 50-100 times the normal letter rate; typical values include one pound, five dollars, etc. Not often seen by the average person, they are most common for parcels." This suggests that one pound is the highest value definitive stamp in say the UK or that five dollars is the highest such US stamp ... but maybe I'm misreading? If so, the amounts are more like 5-10 times the normal letter rate, not 50-100? Tt 225 10:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, mixing up eras a bit - in 1938, US letter rate was 3c, and the highest value was 5$, but nowadays the letter rate is 41c, and the highest regular stamp is still 5$ (although there are priority mail stamps that are higher). Perhaps the "50-100" should become the weaselier "many times", followed by a couple specific examples. Stan 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stamp IQ 1976 50f defin.jpg
Image:Stamp IQ 1976 50f defin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Linking
Several links were removed from the 'see also' section of this page. One of the topic/links there had a link in the main body of text so its removal was warranted, perhaps, as sometimes more than one link for a topic on a page is practical if the page is lengthy. However I saw no reason for the removal of the other links, per MOS. 'See also' is used to connect the reader to topics that are different but related and which may be of further use or interest to and invite the reader into other related areas of the topic. For example since Dec.2005 on the Thomas Edison page there is a 'See also' link to List of people on stamps of Ireland, as Edison is honored on a 2000 stamp issue from Ireland. Chances are if the reader is interested in Edison the reader would also like to see Edison on a postage stamp. If the topic of a link under 'See also' were directly related to the page subject that topic would be covered in the main body of text and not offered as a link. (See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) / Overlinking and underlinking.)   GWillHickers (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're on the road to massive overlinking. Postage stamp is already linked in the lead paragraph.  If these links other links, such as Art Deco Stamps and List of Stamp Issuing countries, are appropriate here, they're appropriate in virtually any philatelic article.  Links should have some direct relevance and not just clutter up every article.  The categories and the philately project tag on the talk page adequately deal with this. Ecphora (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes a topic is linked more than once, as links that are placed in the introduction often are overlooked as the reader is still in the process of familiarizing with the general subject and is usually not quite ready to be branching out to other related topics just yet. If the reader sees the same link again in 'See also', after he/she has digested the material of the page in general, the reader is more likely to follow the link then. However, I can live with just one link per topic for the page. Yes, links should have relevance, and the links that were included were general philatelic topics, as is the topic of 'Definitive stamp' and were all directly involved with different sorts of stamps, none of which were confined to any one country.  Also, to allow an 'Art Deco stamps' link on this page does not automatically allow it to occur on all the philatelic pages. ie.Postal History of Poland.  I did not see anything in MOS that outlines the (very) rigid linking theme that you seem to subscribe to. MOS maintains that the subject of the link must be related. The links I included were directly related.  Please bear in mind that the reason many of the philatelic pages around here have very few number of views per day is because they are linked up to very few other philatelic or other pages. Also, the only way many of these pages will ever be discovered is through links. As is evident on almost any Wiki' page, the 'See also' section links you to other related areas and allows the author a great amount of latitude for which to do so. I haven't seen any problem of "massive overlinking" anywhere.  I would like to add links to the 'See also' section on the 'Definitive stamp' page as it is a very basic philatelic topic that should be allowed to branch out to a good number of other related philatelic topics. Odd that there is not even a 'See also' section at all now.  Removing the 'See also' section in its entirety was not necessary. As for categories, the average reader doesn't even know they exist, let alone know how to use them. Pages need to be user friendly. GWillHickers (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never been a big fan of see-also links myself - seemed like if the subject really had some relevance, there would be a textual reference in the article somewhere. I've also used "what links here" to find duplicate and redundant articles, and its usefulness is diminished if every page links to every other page.  (In fact I'm not a fan of the big link-farm templates for the same reason.)  I don't think there is any reason to believe that adding more see-also links will somehow increase viewership of pages - the same pages are linked via category system, which is right there at the end of the page too.  People are going to follow the links if they find the material interesting, so it's more important that each article be well-written and engaging.  I don't have any idea how many see-also links this article *should* have; MoS leaves plenty of latitude, probably because the decision process is inherently subjective.  Stan (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen many kinds of links in 'See also'. Even when the topic of the link does not share the same category as the subject title of the page. From what I have seen most of the links in 'See also' are not directly related per subject name but are indeed related nonetheless. The only way many pages are discovered is indeed through links, as the average reader is not familiar with categories nor knows how to utilize them. Also, someone who types in the word 'stamp' in the search window is not presented with 'Definitive stamp' as one of the selection choices beneath. Who is going to type in 'Definitive stamp'?  Pages with titles that are not common terms almost always are discovered through links. The Definitive stamp page gets about 60 views per day. The Postage stamp page however averages more than a 1000 views per day.  Stamp collecting, a common term, has 500+ views per day while the page with the less common term Topical stamp collecting only averages about 55 views per day. Classic stamp averages 10 views per day, Semi-postal, 19 views. I would suspect that the only way the latter pages are ever viewed by an average reader is through a link. Looking at the many dozens of philatelic pages it's a wonder that some of them ever see the light of day.  Seems a few more links on some of the basic topic pages would be a good place to bring people into other areas of the philatelic fold. GWillHickers (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that the above reference to number of views per day was by no means a judgment on the editors who have given their time to those pages. Mention to views per day is made in the effort to improve viewership. GWillHickers (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Value
What's the value of this stamp? I have 2 of them in mint condition, along with several other rare ones...any feedback is greatly appreciated! God Bless 2601:844:4300:2470:CC42:F5F7:1D94:954A (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)