Template talk:Washington–Franklin Issue

Washington Franklin Table
Template of Washington Franklin issues

Using Scott numbers for stamps and watermarks. i.e. 190 = single line watermark, 191 = double line watermark

Use of Scotts numbers
-- WW', I took your claim on face value, that copyright concerns for Scotts numbers have been discussed and removed them from the other template. Now there are other templates that I've created that still have them -- most notably the template for the Washington-Franklin Issues (here). If we remove the Scotts numbers from this template it will pretty much gut the template and it will be sort of pointless to keep it, as the only remaining item will be a 'W' or 'F' designation for Washington or Franklin. The main purpose for the template is to sort out all the many Scotts numbers for these issues. Since Scott's numbers are used by almost everyone, auction houses, Catalogs (e.g.Kenmore, Mystic, etc) I am hoping there's a way we can do so here at WP. Looking at my Scotts Specialized Catalogue they state that use of their numbers is allowed with prior permission, so I will be trying to get permission -- hopefully for any Wikipedia stamp article in general. i.e.educational purposes. If and when I do I will need advice about how to proceed from here at Wikipedia. (Actually, any advice now would be helpful also.) This template and a couple of others have had Scotts numbers for almost four years now and not one word from anyone has surfaced until recently so I'm hoping this is not a pressing issue. Since the WF article comes up on Google at the top of the list any time someone does a search for 'Washington-Franklin' I think Scotts publishing company is aware of this article/template and would have said something by now if there were issues. In any case, I'm going to look into this further after consulting others here and I'm hoping we can let these templates stand. Please hold off on any plans you may have about deletion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It certainly doesn't hurt to contact them (I would say to email Charles Snee directly, he's been making a point of being more visible online), but the hard part is that we need a license, not just permission, the license allowing all downstream uses, such as all those books reproducing Wikipedia articles. It wouldn't surprise me if no one at Scott had noticed this template previously, it's a small staff of people and mostly consumed with keeping up with the production schedule... Stan (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave Scott (Amos Publishing) a call (1-800-572-6885) and left a voice mail inquiry and informed them of the situation here. Hopefully I'll hear from them soon. My question now would be, if they grant permission, how do we go about incorporating this here? I'm wondering, and hopping, there is a special WP form or template to fill out should a publisher grant permission in such cases. I will also be sending an email to Charles Snee directly (csnee@amospress.com) making the same inquiry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC) ✅


 * Here is the copy of the email. I identified myself and my username to Amos publishing.

Dear Mr. Snee, I am one of many Editors at Wikipedia and have written and edited many articles about stamps and postal history there. My name is John Fitzgerald and my user-name at Wikipedia is 'Gwillhickers'. Some of my more notable works include the Washington-Franklin Issues article, which makes extensive use of Scott's catalogue numbers. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington-Franklin_Issues#Stamp_issues_chart ) Recently the issue of using Scott's catalogue numbers in Wikipedia articles came up where it was asserted by another editor that incidental usage of a Scott number is okay, but to use them extensively might raise copyright issues. We would like to know if it is okay to make reference to Scott's catalogue numbers in Wikipedia articles in general, i.e.strictly for educational purposes, and are formally requesting permission. I am hoping this will be a benefit to both Amos Press as well as Wikipedia. Any and all information to this effect would be greatly appreciated. All the Best, J. Fitzgerald (phone number and email omitted)


 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Scott's is an industry standard for identification. I notice that lacking other identification of its collection, the National Postal Museum uses Scott numbers, but identify the number as Scott's number. Sort of like calling a refrigerator a Frigidaire, or using xeroxed to mean photocopied, I suppose. I like the idea of explicitly getting blanket permission for use at Wikipedia. Something which might be useful for stamp images from the USPS after 1978. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just got a prompt response from Dave Akin, the Licensing Manager and caught him while he was busy, but he said he will review the matter. FYI: Dave Akin, Licensing Manager, Amos Media, Inc. 911 S. Vandemark Rd. Sidney, OH 45365 937-498-0868 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If Scott do release the numbers under a free licence it would be really great but I highly doubt they will do that, because then everyone could use the numbers and Amos Publishing are rather protective of their numbering system based on the text they use in their catalogs. Because Gwillhicker's request to Scott is specifically only for educational use, that will be of no use to us, and while they might allow that use, we need them to be freely licenced for both commercial and derivative use. The use by other organisations of Scott numbers is not our concern and is made under the fair-use exception. Unfortunately we cannot accept such a restrictions, specifically in templates. TheVirginiaHistorian's analogy is completely wrong because the use of Scott numbers is not at all the similar to using Frigidaire, or Xerox, tradename which have become eponyms is not at all like using a bundle of Scott numbers. Individual product numbers from these companies are not eponyms and no one uses them. Scott just happens to be one of the popular stamp catalog numbering systems, not the industry standard, just one popular catalog and as a US-centric one they are of little use to other users whose preferred catalog is not Scott, such a Gibbons, Michel or Yvert et Tellier. In this particular template the details of denomination, paper and perforation are sufficient for readers to identify any of the stamps and the Scott number is completely unnecessary for identification of any one stamp and really will not gut the template as claimed. So why use them at all? Besides which we are not a stamp catalog. ww2censor (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can really add much to what WW2censor has already said. Filling a template with Scott numbers doesn't help people who don't have a Scott catalogue to hand - and that would include almost all non-collectors, and most non-American stamp collectors wondering what's so interesting about a set so superficially boring.
 * Scott catalogue numbers are also copyright to Scott's. I don't know what the legal situation is about auction houses using Scott numbers as shorthand to describe stamps, but unless Scott release their intellectual property in their numbering system with a Wikipedia-compatible licence, we should be careful about when and how often to use their numbers. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's see how this unfolds. It seems if Amos Publishing was 'that' set against the idea they would have said so right off the bat, and again, they have no issues with others using their numbers, so I don't see why they would take exception to Wikipedia using them in educational articles. And from my more than 30 years experience as a stamp collector, when it comes to U.S. stamps, Scott numbers is the defacto standard, used by most, including eBay. If you do a Google search for 'Scott 893', all by itself, you will get numerous links and images for the Alexander Graham Bell stamp. Try doing that with any other numbering system. No, WP is not a catalog, and no one is trying to make it such simply by referencing U.S. stamps with a numbering system familiar to nearly all collectors of U.S. stamps. As such listing Scott numbers will be a practical and convenient aid for stamp collectors and students of philately. I agree, if they release the numbers under a free license it would be really great. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ww2censor's comment, "we need them to be freely licenced for both commercial and derivative use" sounds like he's been working on the German Wikipedia. In the English Wikipedia we are looking for fair use permissions for educational use. It is always interesting to hear dismissive arguments against visual information in an encyclopedia, and stamps in particular. But Wikipedia is not founded on the principle of sharing information to the world except visually acquired information, especially that which are culturally and historically significant, and sponsored by governments and their regulated subsidiaries, such as stamps. It is as though some of us have a blind spot, so to speak. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @TheVirginiaHistorian, unfortunately it appears you are the one with the blind spot and in that vein I think you need to be reminded of the foundation's aspiration of creating wikipedias with a free content license which means all content, be it textural or visual. The foundation does allow each language wiki to develop their own limited exceptions, like we have at WP:NFCC, and the German wiki do not have such an exception. I work mainly on this wiki and try to abide by the current policies, though both you and Gwillhickers have on several occasions and in several fora argued for changes to that policy. You appear to still not understand that while this wiki is essentially an educational wiki, because the information is shared and used by others who may have commercial interests, we limit the amount of non-free content. In fact I've noticed some mirror sites that exclude the non-free content from their pages. But now we digress from the essential points. Let's see what Amos says. ww2censor (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Insert I have made no attempt to change policy. I object to those who would artificially limit use of stamp images by misconstruing the reasonable fair use restriction against multiple use of the same image --- to mean an unreasonable restriction against multiple stamp images used in the same topical stamp article. I object to editors misdefining a policy requirement as literary criticism alone, when "critical commentary" includes historical analysis. That's it, there is no stalking "stamp catalogue" specter that can swallow up Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have informed those other editors who participated in the previous discussion on this topic 3+ years ago and who appear to still be active or not retired, of this discussion and at the philately project talk page. ww2censor (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree regarding how important it would be to use Scott numbers in Wikipedia but it's up to Amos to give this permission. Hopefully, this issue will be resolved soon. Michael Romanov (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is, in a sense, a stamp catalog, although quite incomplete, as stamps that are not notable would not have separate articles. Let's see what Amos, and Stanley Gibbons, says. Wikipedia can also be viewed as philatelic writing, where catalog numbers are used routinely under the Scott and Amos copyright license. A comprehensive compendium of all knowledge about every stamp ever issued would be a stamp catalog. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's be reminded that the issue is about the usage of Scott catalog numbers. Usage will not have any bearing on whether Wikipedia will or won't become a stamp catalogue. If Amos gives us permission there will be no more issues about usage. This issue will be solved for us, soon hopefully. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Should Scott numbers be a no-go, then I would like to suggest that we have a meta RFC to establish a common guideline that all philately related templates on all Wikimedia projects will aim to use a unique ID held via Wikidata. Legally, nobody can object to us using our own system. Interestingly, there could be no legal objection to identifying the subset of Wikimedia-philately-IDs that map to Scott numbers, we just might not be able to publish a detailed list. This would, for example, make it possible to automatically list all stamps first published in, say, June 1966 with Scott numbers that happen to have associated images on Wikimedia Commons or articles about them (or a parent group ID) on various language Wikipedias.

If we were to use our own system consistently, this might actually become attractive for commercial catalogues to include as an alternative (and wider) unique identity to quote&mdash;especially when they catch on to the idea that by including Wikimedia IDs they can "inherit" illustrative images for their on-line catalogues at no cost, even for commercial re-use... --Fæ (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiki stamp numbers?
Whoaa...  Lots o' luck with that venture. You do realize we would have to author a list of stamps, ID each stamp in terms of subject, date of issue, etc, and assign a Wiki' number -- and do so for each country. I predict it would take months of 'discussion' (the polite term) and then going out to all the articles and replacing Scott's numbers with a Wiki number. With all due respect, I think it would be much simpler if we not try to reinvent the wheel and use Scoots under a fair use license, that is, if Scott/Amos says 'no' to Scott number usage, which I don't see happening, as many other publishers, auction houses, eBay, etc use them extensively. Still waiting for a further answer to my inquiries. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unique IDs for "philatelic objects" need not require any advance preparation. They could just be allocated off the stack for any existing Wikimedia image or text about such an object. The trick would be ensuring that the description on Wikidata was sufficient to identify the object in a repeatable way. Once sets of objects were represented on Wikidata, the interrelationships and hierarchy of objects would be much simpler to maintain, as this would be deduced from other Wikimedia projects as they evolve (such as adding categories on Commons).
 * In practice, if we accept that a set of Q numbers on Wikidata can be extracted already for philatelic objects, these already are a unique set of IDs. A request on Wikidata's village pump would probably result in a report and advice in how to maintain the subset. --Fæ (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair use
-- A follow up reply from Dave Akin from Scott/Amos publishing has finally been returned regarding use of Scott's numbers. Mr. Akin mentions 'fair use' regarding the usage of the Scott's numbering system, but also expresses concern regarding the listing of Scott's numbers in a way that "begins to reproduce sections of the Scott Catalogue". IOW he's referring to "extensive usage", which was a consideration recently expressed to me by another editor. The letter pretty much speaks for itself.

Hi John,

My apologies for the delay in fully responding to your inquiry. We are in the midst of our production schedule for the final two volumes of the 2015 edition of the Scott Catalogue series.

The use of Scott Catalogue numbers in a scholarly article for the means of identification is acceptable to Scott Publishing Co. The authors of articles and stories that appear in philatelic publications in the U.S. generally refer to Scott Catalogue numbers without having to ask us for permission. Stamp dealers who reference Scott Catalogue numbers in advertisements also do not have to request permission to do so. Both of these uses are generally considered “fair use” under copyright law.

An author crosses the line, however, when he begins to reproduce sections of the Scott Catalogue in such a way that a reader can avoid purchasing a catalogue simply by reading the article. This occurs both in print and online, although online violators predominate. A good example is a page on Wikipedia listing the bird stamps of Bophuthatswana that was recently brought to my attention. Here is the link: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_on_stamps_of_Bophuthatswana).

We view this page as a violation of our copyright, and I suspect that Stanley Gibbons (Sta. & Gib.), Michel (Mitchell) and Yvert would hold the same view. As a general rule we, and most other philatelic publishers, do not authorize concordances. We have only licensed one concordance, at a significant fee. I’m not sure how I can get the Scott Numbers removed from this page, but it would be desirable.

Your article on Wikipedia regarding the U.S. Washington-Franklin issues would be fine if it didn’t include the tables containing information from the Scott U.S. Specialized Catalogue and that volume’s Illustrated Identifier of Definitive Issues. These allow a reader to identify their stamps without actually using or purchasing a Scott Catalogue. It is also interesting to note that you don’t even cite the current edition of the catalogue as a source, but rather one from 1982.

I hope the above answers your questions. If not, please feel free to send me an email with your queries.

Best regards,

Dave Akin Amos Media | Licensing Manager 911 S. Vandemark Rd. Sidney, OH 45365 937-498-0868 (O)

Mr. Akin's concerns are fair minded. I have informed him that when time permits "we" will begin converting the WF tables over to a 'date of issue' formatting, which really means it's all on me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well Scott answered the question quite clearly. I have modified List of birds on stamps of Bophuthatswana as mentioned by Dave Akin but it appears that some, maybe all, of the Category:Lists of birds on stamps are set up in a similar way and should be modified too. ww2censor (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

revert
-- You made a revert with a claim that there were "all sorts of formatting problems", yet the appearance of the template doesn't reveal this. Can you explain what the actual problem is? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Obsolete center and font tags, dashes used incorrectly, and misnested span tags, among other problems. Those problems had been carefully fixed by other editors over the years. For some reason, the thoughtful edit summary you presumably wrote when making your edit was not saved with your edit. I recommend that you set the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" preference in your preferences to prevent this accidental error from happening in the future. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * — Sorry about that. I went to an older versions to make a printout (which includes Scott catalogue numbers) and plum forgot to revert back to the current versions. -- Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)