Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 2

Great Britain Stamps & Postal History
Although it is an article and not a category, I want to make my first real contribution by redirecting the UK stamps article to one about GB and creating from that the regional articles mentioned earlier. I'll make a start now and report progress from time to time. --AlbertMW 06:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I also collect British stamps but my interest is actually western Europe as a whole. If I can possibly be of help, I would be glad to try. You are quite right that "UK" has never issued. In fact, I strictly regard the British issuer as England, especially since the regionals began. All the best. --GeorgeWilliams 07:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Redlink Reading the new GB article, I was surprised to see that Dorothy Wilding and the Wilding series comes up red so I've created a section in the project page to-do box around miscellaneous subjects like this that need an article: we do this in the cricket and it works very well though obviously a lot more folk are involved. --BlackJack | talk page 08:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea No doubt there'll be many more. --AlbertMW 14:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Dorothy Wilding is featured in this site: Dorothy Wilding. She was quite a pretty lass in her youth. --BlackJack | talk page 20:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Postage by Country Articles
Been giving some thought to this as I'm not sure about the naming convention being used - Postage stamps and postal history of X. I notice the length has been challenged and that is fair enough too but my unease is around the meaning.

I would like to propose History of postage in X. Postage covers the whole service but, unlike postal, it definitely infers stamps and I think the reason for the original title was to make sure stamps are not forgotten. The key words here are "postage" and "history" so why not use just those? --GeorgeWilliams 07:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed This is simple, correct, effective. I'll adopt it unless anyone seriously objects. Bear in mind that the title length has been challenged and we ought to do something or risk seeing a lot of disparate redirects occurring. There have been a number already but generally by merging a postal article with a country article. --BlackJack | talk page 08:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I thought we had agreed NOT to make major changes in this project without some discussion and consensus but suddenly within a few hours of GeorgeWilliams suggestion I see that you, BlackJack, have already started changing the titles without any further discussion of input from anyone. I know you like to get on with stuff but that is just a bit too fast for such a major change. This suggested new title system forces us to put all the information about BOTH postage stamps and postal history into one article. While this may work for many countries, my experience with Ireland is that the two need separate articles. Please think of other users; if we don't have the words postage stamps in the main title then I think many people will find it more difficult to find articles they might be interested in. Besides all of that, the word postage is, in my opinion, not such a good one. I would prefer Mail even if we do go down this path. BTW just look for the article Postage and you are redirected to Mail. Postage is not a preferred word for this topic at all. This naming convention is in my mind not quite clear enough even though GeorgeWilliams thinks it is. If I was to suggest anything it would be History of postal communications in X; that covers the history, the postage stamps and the postal history, though I still prefer the words postage stamps to be in the title even if it is a longer title. ww2censor 11:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Amended proposal I'm all in favour of two articles for a country like Ireland and I expect Great Britain to need two as well because its postal history goes back into medieval times and the stamp issues alone deserve a major article to themselves. The point is that a naming convention of sorts has been left over from the early days of the project and it has been challenged. Indeed I have found today that 36 postage articles have been lost on account of redirection and I have just spent a couple of hours restoring them to the project. Anyway we are not adopting a convention here because there are variations around post offices abroad, occupation issues and the retention of postage sections in general articles about the issuing entity. If you look at the variety of titles in the countries category, we do not have a convention at all: it's just that the one most used has been challenged on several occasions and we are in danger of losing articles into a black hole, like these 36 which the original author did not keep an eye on.

To be honest, I am inclined to split postal history from postage stamps because I don't really see postal history as an essential component of philately. Philately is the study of the stamps. Postal history refers to the stamps but as historical documents. Why not therefore have alternative titles like Postage stamps of X; Postal history of X; and History of post in X? There is no reason why everything about a country should be in one article and I agree with your approach re Ireland which is the most developed of the country studies. The last of those three options would cover the small countries. Then we have German post in occupied X, French post offices in X and so on. It will be the author's choice but the title does the job and is not long enough to be challenged. If you don't like "postage" then why not "post"? I don't like "mail" at all in this context.

I think we need George to come back and restate his case because I don't think we should get hung up on a naming convention. I want a flexible system that works but I am very wary of length given recent experience. --BlackJack | talk page 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My vote is end this discussion immediately or we will start going around in circles. This articles we are talking about, not categories.  We agreed to discuss category changes but articles are entirely up to the individual editor and that includes the name.  There isn't a naming convention anyway.  All sorts of titles apply.  As for the one that Mr Shebs wanted, it doesn't work, as the 36 lost articles emphatically prove.
 * You think I will need two articles for GB? I think I will need EIGHT!  That's right, eight.  So how am I going to fit all those in a naming convention that is also applicable to San Marino or an Italian post office in Canton or a German military force in Alsace?
 * I would instead provide a guideline re naming and the main points to observe are that it must reflect the content of the article and it must not be too long. If I look at the country category and I see Postage stamps of A followed by History of postage in B, French post offices in C, Postal history of D and then English postal history it will not botheer me in the slightest as long as I know the article is about post and I can see which country it is.
 * Therefore, please, end this discussion immediately and let us get on with the articles. Categories another matter.  --AlbertMW 15:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it! I was myself going to say something along the lines of "forget it" and for the same reasons that there is no naming convention in the first place and there cannot be one with so many different types of article involved as you have already described. I agree we must reach consensus on category changes but articles are up to the editor. After all, if I make a change that someone can prove is factually wrong, it's dead easy to change it back again. I would agree with you re title guidelines that it must be relevant and it must not be too long. As you say, lets get on with the articles. End of discussion. --GeorgeWilliams 16:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree Articles are not for discussion. Each unto his own and if it gets edited, so be it. We discuss categories. Forget naming conventions on articles. In fact, I know from the cricket project that it just doesn't work. As long as the name is meaningful and won't be challenged for length, rude words, foreign words, etc. use it. --BlackJack | talk page 19:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Albert, eight GB articles? You must be working by periods. My guess would be pre-1840, Victorian, Edwardian, George V, George VI, Elizabeth II pre-decimal, Elizabeth II post-decimal and regionals which I see you've already started. Am I right? --GeorgeWilliams 16:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely regionals is already an extra? He must have another one in GB itself and I think eight is the clue: Edward VIII! Yes? --BlackJack | talk page 19:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Regionals and the offices abroad are extensions of GB. My ongoing idea for GB is (1) pre-1840 and then definitives for each of (2) Victorian, (3) Edwardian, (4) George V, (5) Edward VIII and George VI combined, (6) QE2 to 1971, (7) QE2 post-decimal, (8) all commemoratives. So you were both nearly there but I think I should treat commemoratives separately from definitives. Re QE2, I think I might end her post-decimal article in 2000 and have a ninth article of GB in the 21st century to serve as an ongoing piece for future development. Any help you can supply most gratefully received and I might well ask questions from time to time. --AlbertMW 06:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Postage Articles or Postage Sections?
In a similar vein to the previous discussion, I've started trying to move postage sections out of main country articles and into new postal stubs but I'm not now sure if it's a good idea. I think we should after all use sections if the issuing entity is something like a former colony or province; and create a new article if the country is still issuing, but with cross-references. There might be an exception re a major former issuer, of course.

I've added a lot of material to List of postal services abroad which is in the countries category. Nearly all redlinks for now but these articles will be about countries that are using stamps produced by foreign issuers, either through post offices or because of military occupation, but not by a colonial powers. I think these should be independent articles as they are not about one country. --BlackJack | talk page 08:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Up to the individual I agree that changes to categories should be discussed and consensus established but not re articles, which are up to the individual to edit as he sees fit. Otherwise progress will grind to a halt. If you spot a postal section in a country article and think it should have its own article (as per your little local difficulty with Aden that I've been reading), then go ahead and do it. If you think the postal section should stay put, leave it there but make sure of the categories and xrefs given all these articles that had drifted away from us. --AlbertMW 14:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Albert on this as per previous topic. Articles are up to the editor. --GeorgeWilliams 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Albert. --BlackJack | talk page 19:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Philately by Country Category
I have been trying to perform a gap analysis of this to get some much-needed structure into it and it has turned out to be in a worse state than I thought. I have managed to find no less than 36 other articles that had been allowed to go astray and I've added them all back into the category. They are all country articles that were started off as philately articles and have been redirected even though many of them still have philately as the main component. "Somewhat of a mess", I think the phrase is! --BlackJack | talk page 12:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done This is what comes of not having a structured method of categorisation and article control. I thought I had read all the philately material on the site and now there are 30-odd more! --AlbertMW 15:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It definitely proves that you must have a planned, structured, methodical approach. We must be careful to secure these things for the future both via the category and within your entities lists. May I suggest a status per line in the entities lists for all the bluelinks as it may help us to keep track? --GeorgeWilliams 16:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Status comment is a good idea, George. I'll do that. Welcome back! Albert, enjoy the read: some of them are very interesting. --BlackJack | talk page 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Postal History (1)
You're all going to get bored with me. We have a postal history category and rightly so.

We are writing postal histories per country just as we are writing postage stamp articles per country. AlbertMW says he needs eight GB articles and I believe him. ww2censor needs Postal history of Ireland as a separate article from Postage stamps of Ireland and I could not agree more. The same will happen re America, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, Canada, Australia and all other major issuers.

We have just had a pointless discussion re "naming convention" in the philately by country category. Now, I happen to think that is a pretty stupid name for a category especially as it infers that we are supposed to write articles about both postage stamps and postal history. These are separate subjects and I believe we should break the mould.

I propose, but will not do anything about it until Saturday 26 August, that we introduce sub-categories under category:Postal history for postal history topics per country. I also propose that category:philately by country is used for articles re postage stamps per country but that we change the category name to something better (on which I haven't a suggestion as yet): the present name is naff so lets get rid of it.

I believe we should keep postal history items separate from postage stamp items at the country level. I don't believe that using sub-cats of category:postage stamps for the country stamp articles is the answer as we are going to use that for individual stamp or issue articles per country.

I'll be glad to hear some views about this.

Finding those 30-plus articles today that were no longer in the project has pissed me off somewhat and the more I look at the project, the more I realise that it will need a lot of effort to get it sorted. As I have said elsewhere, ad nauseum, this project has never had any kind of plan, any kind of gap analysis, any kind of structure or any kind of method. Mess? Oliver Hardy, I know how you felt. --BlackJack | talk page 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gee, and all that time I thought I was doing something useful by adding actual content, when I should have been doing "gap analysis" instead! Stan 02:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't do a "gap" analysis, for want of a lay term, you cannot have a plan of action. You cannot begin to understand the scale or the scope of the project and you cannot define a structure.  Without a structure, as we have seen, 30-odd articles go walkabout.  It is all very well submitting data but it has to be organised to form useful information and presented in a way that it provides knowledge, from which wisdom is achieved.  It's all there in the study of knowledge management and it is obviously fundamental to any kind of publication or system, both of those words being applicable to any project on Wikipedia.
 * Stan, if you were at least constructive in your criticisms, I might have some sympathy for your views but you have a "Gee, I'm so-oo clever" attitude in the way you express yourself and sympathy goes right out of the window. It is evident that you do not like BlackJack.  Although he was very restrained in the recent controversy (even his little reproach just above is quite mild), I suspect he has in the past told you what he thinks, given some of the angry comments I have seen on the deletion pages, and so the two of you don't get on.  Which is a pity, because you both have a lot to offer and you have both achieved much.  You have supplied loads of good and useful images; and, as you say, a lot of content.  He has built the Compendium, which in my opinion is an outstanding achievement.  Why not work together for the benefit of the project and its readers?  --AlbertMW 06:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Albert, thank you for your comment about the compendium. I should point out that User:GeorgeWilliams deserves equal credit for it. George and I know each other and we are collaborators on this site. George has done most of the research but he is not comfortable with computers so it may appear that I have done it all. I have not (in any case, where would we have been without all the friendly little wikibots!!). There are numerous such cases of people collaborating on a project. I know two people through work who collaborate on Wikipedia during the lunch break.

You are quite right that Stan and I have had our differences which go right back to when George and I first joined the project exactly a year ago with our ideas for what eventually evolved into the compendium. I was welcomed into the cricket project with open arms, but I can't say that about the philately project. Even so, I persevered and I have from time to time tried to get along with Stan. As it happens, the compendium became almost a separate project and so I have been outside the philately mainstream until now, because the compendium is "live" and it is time to look at the bigger picture.

I'll be pleased if Stan will continue to make contributions but it is clear that the project has moved on and he will have to move with it. Instead of someone "adding content" we now have serious sub-projects such as the compendium, the Ireland articles, your GB articles; and we are starting to achieve a structure that will be needed if we want this project to be respected by the community and actually usable by the readership, especially the researchers among the readership. --BlackJack | talk page 07:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The part that irritates me the most is the habit of saying things like "it is clear that the project has moved on and he will have to move with it". No, that is just your personal opinion - stating it as fact does not make it so. Stan 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)