Talk:Red Revenue

Philately assessment
This is an inappropriate revert. The stamp is certainly not a high-importance article for the whole of the philately project. If it were a really unique stamp with a very small number of examples I could possibly agree with you but it is not really very rare. How much philatelic work have you done to know what level it warrants? ww2censor (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The Red Revenues are the first series of postage stamps ever issued by China, and for that historic reason alone, it's worth a high importance rating for philately, IMO. Not to mention the value of the rarest varieties of the series. They're rarer and have been sold for higher prices than the Inverted Jenny, and they're far more valuable than the Hawaiian Missionaries, the 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps, the Inverted Swan, or the Basel Dove, all of which are rated as high importance. -Zanhe (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC) Moved discussion here from my personal talk page.


 * That seems like a reasonable justification. ww2censor (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Should change the title to 'Red Revenue stamp of China'
In line with similar articles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Revenue_stamps_by_country - Currently, it's listed correctly under C but adding "China" to the tile would be clearer.

Skigg (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's unnecessary, article titles should be concise. And this article does not belong in the "Revenue stamps by country" category, as it's not an overview of China's revenue stamps. -Zanhe (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)