Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 7

Stamps from Nyassa
Hello. On this page - Compendium_of_postage_stamp_issuers_(Ni_–_Nz) it says that for Nyassa a main article is needed. I know about Nyassa's stamps, and am happy to write an article, but where should it be? What should the title be? And are there any other pages that should link to it? I know Nyassa (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. It hasn't been done because, strictly speaking, the Nyassa Company was not a country but there is definitely enough philately to justify an article. Click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PostalhistoryAfrica then on Nyassa and it will open an empty window for you to start. I recently did Postage stamps and postal history of Togo and Postage stamps and postal history of Ghana and you could look at those for roughly what is required. You need to link to Postage stamps and postal history of Mozambique and the Niassa Company articles. Incidentally, although the article for the company spells it Niassa I think that is wrong and it should be Nyassa. I suggest that you use the later spelling which I think is the normal one. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good luck and please don't forget to add inline citations and verifiable references. ww2censor (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On the name, it's a difficult one. The Portuguese name is Companhia do Nyassa, and and wherever used on stamps, including overprints, the name is "Nyassa"...why is the article at Niassa Company at that spelling? I know Nyassa (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just done a Google search for the company and found reliable sources using both spellings. Britannica at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/413785/Niassa-Company use that spelling, as does this book, however an article linked at http://www.jstor.org/pss/180419 uses the other spelling. Did they change their name or is it different in English than Portuguese? Philatelically we use Nyassa so I personally would use that spelling for the philatelic article. Maidonian (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's different in Portuguese to English, as on a 1921 issue the name of the company is give as "Companhia do Nyassa". Possibly the confusion arises because the province in Northern Mozambique was Niassa? It could be that it's a local / foreign issue, rather than a Portuguese / English issue. I would say plump for "Nyassa" for consistency. I know Nyassa (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. Maidonian (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise. "Niassa Company" seems like an anachronism constructed from the modern name of the province, which dates from long after the company's dissolution.  Don't use modern online Britannica as a reference!  They've been quietly borrowing from WP; it's been a little bit of a shock to see some of my WP photos show up in their articles (properly credited, that's not an issue).  The citation of the map in Hewitt's book is misleading, since the *text* of the book uses "Nyassa Company", and the one inconsistent reference on a map somehow managed to get by the proofreaders. Stan (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would go with Nyassa because when I do a google books search "Nyassa Company" and "Niassa Company" limited to full and preview books I see that Nyassa comes up more often (373 compared to 13 actual results of modern publications) and I presume that early 20th century official publications can be relied on to know the correct spelling, like these; UK parliamentary papers, UK Board of Trade, Transvaal and Orange Free State Chamber of Mines, and several others. ww2censor (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1911 Britannica use Companhia do Nyasa here so use Nyassa. Maidonian (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Created stub here: Postage stamps and postal history of the Nyassa Company which may help. Maidonian (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try to add to it when I get the time. I know Nyassa (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article and I think, from reading up on these things, it qualifies to be a Do You Know candidate, so I think I've added it there correctly. I've also, with some help, managed to upload some scans to the commons site. Any tinkering anyone wants to do to the article would be appreciated. I know Nyassa (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellet. I hope you can attempt the same with other African philately articles, even if you know little about them the research can be done. In fact I may get around to stubbing the red links in the africa template in due course.. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Displaying Images of U.S. Postage Issued after Jan. 1, 1978


Up until now it was my understanding that only images of U.S. Postage issued before Jan.1, 1978, and hence in the Public Domain, were permitted to be displayed here at Wikipedia, and that those issued after this time were not without special permission from the USPS. Yet from time to time I would encounter such images at the Smithsonian Postal Museum, Ebay and other places. -- After a little investigating and to my surprise I discovered that permission is not required if these images are used for educational purposes or in such a fashion that is used to display them at places like Ebay. -- See:  USPS - Uses Not Requiring Permission  http://www.usps.com/rightsandpermissions/fair-use-exceptions.htm GWillHickers GWillHickers (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some Wikipedias, including English, allow fair-use images under restricted circumstances; see Non-free content. Commons never allows fair-use images, so that Viking mission stamp is going to be deleted by whoever gets to it first.  Category:Fair use images of United States postage is our small collection of fair-use US stamps; basically you have to write a rationale, and the article has to talk about the stamp's design or appearance in some way. Even then, hardcore free-image editors will still find excuses to delete fair-use images, so it's not something you can count on being able to do. Stan (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Stan, Thanks for the sobering clarification. Here it is more than ten days later and no one has elected to remove the Viking mission issue yet, not that I doubt some one will eventually. What is the concern about having 'fair-use' images in Commons?? It seems there ought to be some exceptions where government issues and the like are concerned. Also, I have seen many images of contemporary currency displayed in various pages. Now I'm wondering if they're P.D. or F.U. Will see what I can find.  GWillHickers (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Many countries don't have a legal concept of fair use, Germany for instance. So the idea is that as a global resource, commons should only have images that are allowed in all countries (yes, there are flaws in the idea, as there is no obstacle to Germans looking at en: images :-) ).  WP is perhaps stricter than strictly necessary, but even with the restrictions, there are thousands of dubious uploads every single day, including entireties of movies, records, etc, enough to get WP shut down if they're not dealt with. The legal status of currency, as with stamps, is all over the place, I don't know much about that. Stan (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stan, at the prompting of Ww2censor I have removed the Viking mission image from the section it was in on the page. -- If using images of postage issued after 1978 is ok with the USPS (so long as such use is educational) I don't quite understand why 'Commons would restrict them, esp since they already allow pre 1978 images there. If this is just a matter of appealing to policy makers at Wiki' I would be interested in approaching them with the issue and request to include/use such images. If you know of any preferable way/person to approach them with this I would certainly be interested and most appreciative.  By not allowing images after 1978, they are blocking more than 30 years of postage images from their archives! GWillHickers (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * commons:Commons:Licensing is pretty much set in stone. The thought experiment is "can I print the image on a t-shirt and sell it?". You can do this with any commons image, but not with recent USPS images - in fact one of the motivations for the USPS-related provision in the 1977 act was so that they did own the artwork they commissioned and could license it for non-stamp products; basically fixing an oversight in the 1971 creation of the corporation. Stan (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As Stan has pointed out, fair use is a concept that applies in the United States but not in many other countries, and is not acceptible on Commons:

"Fair use depends on the context the image (or other media) is used in. That is, something that can be used on one page as fair use would be a copyright violation on another page. Also, fair use does not allow for the storage of material on a general media database such as Commons. This means that fair use concepts simply do not apply on Commons."

The permission statement by the USPS pointed out by GWillHickers (talk), however, goes beyond fair use and I think amounts to a world-wide free license for its post 1977 stamps. That license, however, is limited to specific uses and has restrictions. For this reason, it is still unacceptible on Commons as stated in Commons policy:

"Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose." See also the Commons discussion of Free content. Ecphora (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The USPS permission statement refers specifically to "Educational Use", "News Reporting" and "Philatelic Advertising Use" non of which comply with either Wikipedia fair use or the freely licenced commons use. Their statement is essentially redundant because fair-use is entrenched in US law but even this English language wiki's fair use criteria goes beyond that accepted in law because unfortunately this encyclopaedia does not allow educational only use because part of the foundations mission is to: "develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain." Any use of stamps under the fair use claim must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria and additionally follow the WP:NFC guidelines. For quite a long time I have actively been nominating for deletion improperly used fair-use stamps though even some stamp article uses are questionable. ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an interesting page. Great Americans series, the stamp illustrated there was issued after 1978. Does the author know something I/we don't, or have I just painted a bull's on that page? GWillHickers (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with the use of one non-free image in the Great Americans series article? The stamp is used under Wikipedia's fair-use criteria, is well justified, and complies with WP:NFC #3 (identification of the stamp) and WP:NFCC (minimal use). ww2censor (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Glad to see it. Am still not clear why the ie.Viking Mission issue of 1978 can't be included in Commons, and used on a page, and why the 'Alice Paul' issue can. GWillHickers GWillHickers (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Commons and Wikipedia are different "places" and have different rules, which are discussed above. As explained above, Commons does not recognize fair use; everything on Commons must be  freely useable by anyone for any purpose.  The image of the Alice Paul stamp is not on Commons; it's hosted on Wikipedia only and only for use as fair use in that article.  If you're confused as to where an image is hosted, click on it, and you will go to a page with the image and text. If the image is on Commons, it will state "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below."  You can go from that page to Commons.  If the image is not on Commons, there will be no such statement.  If it is a fair use image only, an explanation justifying fair use should be on that (Wikipedia) page. Hope this helps. Ecphora (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

1978+ stamp image upload
I was checking out the upload requirements for 1978+ postage images and found out that a "fair use" rationale form or template must be completed on the upload page. -- Am a bit in the dark here. Am not sure what to enter after the equal sign ie. 'low resolution =' and am not quite clear about 'replaceability ='  Also, if the 1978 Viking Mission postage stamp is uploaded in this 'fair use' capacity it can only be used in a specific article (which must be specified in fair use rationale beforehand). Am not sure whether or not the stamp may be discussed in a topographical capacity. Apparently the Viking issue can be used as an example about the subject of 'space exploration on stamps' in general, but can not be used as an illustration for a discussion of the Viking satellite itself. GWillHickers (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia general fair use policy is set forth in Non-free content. One of the requirements is that the image be at low resolution.  On the "Low resolution=" you should enter "yes" and images of 20-40kb seem to be acceptable.  More information on fair use criteria for postage stamps is found on the Category:Fair use stamp images page.  You can follow the links on that page to various individual stamps to get an idea of the fair use justifications.  Here are two examples: File:Stamp irl 1997 £1goose.jpg and File:Memin Pinguin 1.jpg.  As indicated in these examples, it is accepted that fair use should include using a copyright stamp in a Wikipedia article about the stamp itself or in an article discussing the stamps of a country.  At the other end of the spectrum is using a stamp purely as illustration of its subject, such as Elvis, which is not acceptable.  In between these uses, it is not always clear cut.  For example, using a stamp to illustrate a statement in a non-philatelic article that "Elvis's image has appeared on postage stamps" is probably not appropriate (as the image is not required to follow the point), but it might be if the stamp itself is discussed in the article and the image is needed to understand the discussion, e.g., "Elvis appeared on a stamp of the Netherlands with a peculiar lurid look which resulted in the stamp being withdrawn."  Ecphora (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Viking Mission 1978 issue, would it be 'Wiki-Legal' to give general back ground info' of the Viking mission and 'then', to justify using the stamp image simply say.. 'In 1978 the US Post office issued a stamp with an accurate depiction of the Viking Satellite.' Mind you, the stamp isn't being used to illustrate the Viking like some photo that could replace it could, it is being displayed to show the accurate depiction.  Would this arrangement fly?  Also, the article is about space exploration history on stamps. Would the image be allowable on that premise alone?  (almost) at wit's end. GWillHickers (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Memin Pinguin stamp for instance, no textual description can do justice to what is (to the USian eye) an extreme stereotype, so it's easy to justify. By comparison, the Viking stamp initially seems kind of uninteresting - if the image is accurate, then what use is it to WP when we have good photos of Viking already?  But if one looks closer, there are lots of spheres in the sky reminiscent of McCall's work (was he the designer?), and the arm is positioned for extreme perspective - is the depth to punch up the image, or to emphasize the collection aspect of the mission, or what?  In a way, *in*accurate aspects of a stamp image are more likely to be good justifications for its inclusion.  Stan (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why a stamp design cannot be discussed on a "non-philatelic" page and a fair use image be included to supplement the discussion. As Stan points out, you would need some discussion of the stamp's design or appearance. Just as an example, you might add a "Viking Mission on stamps" section or a "Viking Mission in popular culture" to a general article about the program.  [You don't necessarily need such a section if you can work in the discussion elsewhere]. You might say something like "The US government issued postage stamps to promote [or to boast about] the program.  One stamp, issued in 1978, depicts an impossibly huge Viking lander on a tiny Mars.  The stamp was beautifully engraved [did it win an award; was it praised in the press?] and printed in many colors, including an inaccurate (in space) blue sky."  Ecphora (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree somewhat with Ecphora's suggestion of a justification for the use of non-free stamp images in non-philatelic articles. You can of course discuss the existence of a stamp in any article but use of a non-free stamp image must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria. What does that mean? Essentially some of Ecphora's prose would not be considered as "contextually significant" because it only tells us that the stamp was issued and adds some production and design related details so such a non-free stamp images will most likely fail WP:NFCC because the stamp is unnecessary to understand the prose. Many such images have been deleted in the last few years where similar prose was/is used in the article because what is required is some reliably sourced "critical commentary" about the stamp itself not about the subject of the stamp. However, Ecphora suggests some useful reasons that might be acceptable, such as mention of awards or design errors. The question you need to ask yourself is: does the reader really need to see the stamp to understand the article? Use of non-free stamps has been an issue since at least 2006 and if you really want I can point you to several discussions and deletion nominations that suppport my points. ww2censor (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Viking Mission 'Fair-Use' Upload
File:Viking Mission Mars2 1978 Issue-15c.jpg

After heeding the valuable advice obtained here at the project and after scouting around I think (and hope) I hit on the right approach, which seems, after all, rather simple and straightforward. It is now my understanding that the image is justified because it is a stamp image, and can not be replaced by any other non stamp image of Viking. As long as the stamp is discussed in relation to the image, the image is again justified. The image size is approximately 293k because of the size of the image, not because of its resolution, which is low. To my surprise, the image came out quite clear regardless, so apparently, ultra high res' is not required to obtain a good image of a stamp, unless of course you want to zoom in and examine the paper fiber. So thar' she blows! The image is up on the U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps page. -- If there is other info that can be included in that section which helps to further justify the use of the stamp, please include it on the page, or at least bring it to my attention here. Thank you for all your help and esp your patience for this tenderfoot editor. -- John -- aka GWillHickers (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * John, fair use images are generally smaller than 300px on the longest size and this one is far bigger than permitted, so needs to be reduced. Also, non-free images may only be used in mainspace articles and nowhere else per WP:NFCC, so I have turned the image into a link which is permitted. ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * At the present resolution, the image details, which are referred to in the article are not discernable. Doesn't 'fair-use' allow for a resolution / size which permits the image to be seen clearly? Don't quite understand the rigid restrictions, esp since the USPS allows the image for educational and other uses, without such self-defeating restrictions in the first place. Are the restrictions set in stone, or would a (united) effort to allow clearer images be in vain? Seems to me that stamp images would be the definitive exception to the resolution / size restrictions, esp since the image size is inherently small to begin with. Also, by main space article, do you mean that the image can only be used in its own article, not in a section of an article such as the one in question? The article U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps has no prefix to its title.  GWillHickers (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stamps make up a microscopic percentage of the fair-use images on WP; most of the non-free images are going to be media box covers, paintings, celebrity head shots, etc; the resolution needs to be low enough that people won't forego buying the copyrighted image in favor of copying from WP. With hundreds of thousands of non-free images, WP is a handy target for any disgruntled copyright holder that wants to sue it out of existence, and there are thousands of uploaders who want non-free images on WP, no matter whether it's legal or moral, and no matter what the cost.  So they spoil it for everybody, and if we make an exception for one case, then all the others howl about they should have an exception too, and we're back to chaos again.  (I worked on fair-use cleanup a couple years ago, and so my own talk page archives have some examples of how nasty people can get about it.) Stan (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand the concern of copyright holders worrying that people might 'capture' images at WP and not purchase them. But in the case of stamp images, they are no longer available at the P.O.. Even if they were, unless the party in question is going to use the image in a counterfeit capacity to avoid paying postage (a lot of time and effort to save a few cents), I don't see why WP would be concerned there. Unlike the copyright holders of box covers, etc, the USPS has given permission to use such images for educational purposes without any restrictions on size and resolution. It is on that premise I would base my appeal. However, I am slowly resigning to the reality that my concerns here are just one more among the many others. I was hoping that some sort of appeal could be submitted in the case of images of USPS issues, as such restrictions are indeed an impediment to those who wish to author philatelic references that are complete. Oh well, thank you once again for your time and effort here. GWillHickers (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * John I don't want to seem mean or over-critical but it seems you just don't like wikipedia's fair-use policy and instead of working with it or trying to understand it, you would prefer to change it which might be nice. You also don't seem to understand that wikipedia policy does not allow educational use only because that is not freely usable within the Wikipedia's definition of "free" use. Please read the non-free content criteria and the Non-free content page, especially the explanation of policy and guidelines and if you still don't like it then I suggest you make a proposal to change it by making a proposal WT:NFC though I doubt you will have any success. Working within the rules is the best option rather than complaining or trying to find a way to weave and dodge around policy. ww2censor (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Am sorry I gave you the impression that I want to dodge policy. Yes, you are correct in that I am obviously not pleased with the 'fair-use' policy regarding stamp images. Was just trying to find out if the points I brought up would amount to something that someone could approach policy makers with, and as I am indeed a new-comer to editing thought also that if I first 'contested' policy  before a few seasoned editors I could get an idea of whether or not such an undertaking would be practical. Please understand that the last thing I want to do is go against rules and policy. GWillHickers (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that our fair use policy seems overly restrictive for stamps, and let's be honest, there is no postal organization in the world that would actually insist that WP take down some non-free stamp image. But the current compromise was so hard-won, after years of internal fighting, that it would be very difficult to get agreement on any sort of special exception for stamps. I've been here seven years, and done lots of copyright work, and I have no idea how one would pull it off. Stan (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sure policy has changed numerous times throughout Wikipedia's history when it was merited. Just for the exercise, I will submit an 'appeal' of sorts that addresses the subject of size limitations regarding images of 1978+ US postage, esp since there are no copyright holders out there who would be compromised by relaxing such limits on size and res'. It would seem this is the definitive distinction that separates stamp images from most of the other types. ie.paintings, celeb' photos, album covers, media box covers etc. Also, as the USPS is a branch of the federal government, anything that it issues is, once again, distinctly in a class apart from those other commercially and privately owned images. As Ww2censor mentioned, and at this point I have no reason to doubt this, it probably won't be successful, but it would be interesting to see their reasoning for any opposition regarding these points outlined nonetheless. GWillHickers (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With due respect, I think these approaches are misguided. The fact that the United States Postal Service is a "branch" of the goverment (actually, it's an independent agency) is irrelevant; it can claim the same copyright protection as anyone else.  Nor are you going to get anywhere on the size of images; that limitation applies across the board to all fair use images.    Ecphora (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the United States Postal Service page the USPS is indeed a branch of the US'gov headed by a Cabinet secretary, though this is not to say the USPS can't contest copyright violations when they occur, however, I don't think the size of the image would amount to anything in the way of such a violation. Yes, I know there is a 'one-size-fits-all' restriction on all 'fair-use' images, however as I indicated I would still like to see how they rationalize it regarding gov stamp images (if they do at all) as no one is being compromised as might someone whose 'media picture' or some such is being displayed clearly here at WP. Stan pointed out if they allow one sort of image to be larger than other types of iamges, others might complain, however, in the other cases, as far as I know, all involve private/commercial images, unlike those of the USPS.  And unlike other images, those of the USPS are produced with tax dollars, and seems that they ought to be allowed in the public domain in the same manner as the other US stamp images to begin with. This would seem to be the definitive difference between US stamp images and other images. As I said, just an exercise. It's unfortunate that more than 30 years of US government stamp issues are restricted in such a manner. GWillHickers (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also on our USPS page, see .  Stan (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously this topic can not so easily be put into one box. If the USPS is a gov agency, headed by a cabinet secretary, and its images are produced with tax dollars, I don't quite understand how these images could not be considered government issues per US copyright office claim. But that would be an issue to take up with the copyright office so I may as well howl at the moon on that note. Still I hope an appeal can be made to WP on the basis that the USPS is not concerned with size limitations and that no private or commercial copyright holder would be compromised by WP offering clear images of these stamps in its philatelic pages. Call me naive and overly optimistic, but it still wouldn't hurt to try.  After all, changes have been made before. GWillHickers (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair Use appeal

 * If you want to pursue this, that's great, but you might benefit from the following. First, you say you don't understand how images "produced with tax dollars" can possibly be copyright.  The answer is that Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the Constitution, enacted a law authorizing USPS to claim copyright.  I discussed this here.   Second, you state that USPS "is not concerned with size limitations".  That might be true, or it might not.  The USPS permission page doesn't expressly state that.  It doesn't discuss size of images at all and it has that troubling "generally" in "Generally, no prior permission is required for: Educational Use ..."   If you claim that the USPS doesn't care about size of images, you will be asked to prove that.  Good luck.  Ecphora (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Careful.. I said that "I don't quite understand how these images could not be considered government issues per US copyright office claim", ...esp since they are paid for with tax dollars. ie.If they are not works of the gov, then whose works are they? I don't doubt for a minute that the USPS holds the copyrights. -- In any event if the USPS was as concerned and as rigid in their thinking as the guardians of WP 'fair-use' policy are it seems they would have made some sort of mention of the subject of size and res'. Not even a cursory reference is made by the USPS to the idea.  That and the idea that no private or commercial copyright holders would be compromised if these images were somewhat larger and clearer when used in the philatelic pages at WP is what I will appeal to WP with. I am still doing a bit of research and doing 'test runs' with this idea. I hope to have a draft of the appeal written up in a day or so, and when I do I will run it by here so you guys can take one more swipe at it, or perhaps so you can add something that might also help with wording the appeal. This is not to say that your criticisms and doubts do not help, as they indeed have. GWillHickers (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Look up references to "copyright paranoia", which should give you some insight into what drives the decisionmaking. It's very rare that any copyright holder ever objects to an image on WP, but we have hundreds of thousands that *could* be objected to.  So left to themselves, people's imaginations concoct scenarios of massive RIAA-style lawsuits, bankruptcy of the foundation, and the shutdown of WP.  Also note that it's not actually in the interest of copyright holders to be clear about what they will go along with as fair use - no lawyer would advise you to preannounce that you will do nothing if the egregious violation is only 299px instead of 300px across. Also thinking like a lawyer, copyright violations can make handy leverage for what one really wants - for instance, to try to get unflattering content removed from the USPS article.  Paranoiacs worry about that too. :-) Stan (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Viking Mission to Mars, 1978 Issue
 * Just finished reading 'copyright paranoia' (redirected) and came across this interesting passage: -- "In the USA, the United Kingdom, and several other countries, it is legal to produce alternate versions (for example, in large print or braille) of a copyrighted work to provide improved access to a work for blind and visually impaired persons without permission from the copyright holder." -- In the interest of improved access, esp to those with impaired eyesight, perhaps the appeal can also make reference to this idea (larger print/image), as stamp images in particular are small and often have many details in the design that can not be discerned without magnification, as is the case with the Viking Mission issue. Almost all of the details of the design can not be discerned, making reference to them in the article sort of futile. If it were not for the extending soil sampler, the Mars probe would barely be recognizable. Also, the print along the lower side of the image is barely readable.  As it is, the blurred image of the Viking probe almost looks as if someone heaped a load of junk onto the structure. GWillHickers (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding Wiki' links
Other opinions are needed and welcomed on the Postal history talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwillhickers (talk • contribs) 15:18, 17 June 2010
 * I think topics like that should be discussed here. --Michael Romanov (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer with keeping with the WP tradition of talking about a page on the page's discussion page, but if you insist on cutting and pasting to and responding here be my guest. GWillHickers (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely and absolutely agree with . If we begin adding everything that is currently available in the Category:Postal history, and especially Category:Postal history by country, can you imagine the size of the section 'See also'? This is not what's prescribed in WP:ALSO. --Michael Romanov (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Straw man. No one was saying that 'everything' in philately should be added to 'see also' in postal history, just various pages that are directly related to postal history. GWillHickers (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See also links added to any article should be closely associated with the topic per WP:ALSO. I noticed that GWillHickers has been placing more "see also" links in several articles to pages he has recently created which could easily be interpreted as promotion of his own wikiwork. While some of these links may be appropriate, the ones added to "postal history" were in my opinion, not closely enough associated with the topic to keep. If we start adding one country's stamp/postal history link, why should we not add another few, or a dozen, or maybe even all of them? It could be the start of a very slippery slope and as GWillHickers has said "No one was saying that 'everything' in philately should be added". Where do we start and where do we stop? Michael Romanov states the situation well and covers other points I fully endorse. Categories are there to contain pages of more general related links. If we accept the links GWillHickers added, I can also see there being suggestions that links are US-centric and don't take a worldview. ww2censor (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And in this respect, we should follow WP:WORLDVIEW. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Page titles
Hi Michael, I noticed you removed one of Caps' in the title 'U.S. Presidents on U.S. postage stamps'. in particular, the 'P' in Postage, per proper names. My thinking is that as 'U.S. President', U.S. Post Office, or U.S. Constitution are proper names so too is 'U.S. Postage'. The words taken by themselves are not proper names. ie.post office, constitution, president, postage, but in the former examples they are. Before changing the title back using a capital I thought I would confer with you to inform you of my reason. Also I am doing so because I would like not to have the 'redirect' note appear under the title when the page is accessed, as this page is linked up to a fair number of pages with the link/title spelled with a capital 'P'. Thanks for looking out. GWillHickers (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I renamed the following articles, according to WP:LOWERCASE:
 * U.S. Presidents on U.S. Postage stamps → U.S. Presidents on U.S. postage stamps
 * U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps → U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps
 * Soviet Space Exploration History on Soviet Stamps → Soviet space exploration history on Soviet stamps

As to 'U.S. Postage stamps', I do believe that it must be 'U.S. postage stamps'. 'postage' is not a proper name here, if even there is 'U.S.' to the right left of it. --Michael Romanov (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean to the left of it, don't you? In any event, the term is a proper name, used on US Postage for many years. GWillHickers (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael's correct. The subject here is "postage stamps", which is not a proper noun. "United States" is a proper noun used as an adjective.  Ecphora (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * More than a week ago I pointed GWillHickers to the article naming policy on his talk page. ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate the contribution to WP articles on philately and postal history that is being made by our colleague GWillHickers. But we should not forget and should follow the guidelines and policies established within WP regarding article writing, naming, formatting, illustrating, etc. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I renamed U.S. Presidents on U.S. Postage stamps back to U.S. Presidents on U.S. postage stamps in full accordance with WP:LOWERCASE. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I still think 'US Postage' is a proper name and when I used a capital 'P' that was my reasoning, however I will accept common consensus here.


 * On another note, yes, when I add links to the pages I create I am indeed trying to promote 'my page', as I am sort of proud of them, even though they are relatively simple works, but foremost I am trying to promote philately here at WP, hopefully in a way that is not obtrusive. GWillHickers (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Central index of postal history
A quote from Ww2censor to Gwillhickers (taken from above): -- "If we start adding one country's stamp/postal history link, why should we not add another few, or a dozen, or maybe even all of them? It could be the start of a very slippery slope and as GWillHickers has said "No one was saying that 'everything' in philately should be added". Where do we start and where do we stop?" --
 * A good question. If there were that many pages on postal history with respect to various individual countries this might be a concern, however, perhaps I'm mistaken, there are not that many. If it got to a point where the 'See also' section became flooded with such links, then, at that point some sort of moderation might have to be employed. Perhaps a link which read 'List of other postal history pages'. It would seem that a few links to other postal history pages, on the Postal history page, would not only bring more exposure to these pages but would also help to promote the study and invite more people into the fold with perhaps any contributions they may have. If there is common consensus would adding a section with a list or central index of the various Postal history pages here at WP be appropriate on the Postal history page? If there is I will gladly compose the list and add it as a section. 'Index of postal history pages' (with no caps'!).  GWillHickers (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For this purpose, we don't need to use 'See also'. You may try to create a Postal History navigation box. See this and other examples in Category:Navbox (navigational) templates. Regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. Sure, such a template should correspond to WP:WORLDVIEW. --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we require another navigation box when we already have six: PostalhistoryEurope, PostalhistoryAsia, PostalhistoryAfrica, PostalhistoryAsia, PostalhistoryAmericas and PostalhistoryOceania? We also have the older, now superceeded by the above indicidfual continent templates, the single template Postal history by country, already in the Postal history article, and besides all those country articles we also have another 41 articles in the postal history category that are linked at the bottom of the page. ww2censor (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably the Template:Postal history by country at the bottom of postal history is not sufficiently conspicuous when not unfolded, since its hundreds of links apparently went unnoticed. :-) Stan (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have deleted that one and added the six five others and as they usually display collapsed should be pretty obvious to all in the "see also" section without being too obtrusive. Is that acceptable to everyone? If not please revert. ww2censor (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel a little silly now. I had no idea there were so many postal history pages. Don't know why I didn't notice the collapsed menu-bar before. Btw, here's a 'philatelic salute' to the party or parties who put all of those pages on the 'map'. GWillHickers (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair Use size limitation
Just posted an appeal of sorts to WP regarding Fair Use and size limitations.
 * The latest development can be viewed at the 'Non Free Content' Talk Page. GWillHickers (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair-use discussion has been archived. GWillHickers (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons uploads
To standardize categorization of stamp image uploads on Commons, I suggest a minimum of the following three category types to be added for a single stamp file, wherever it's possible: For instance, (currently in question) could be categorized as follows:
 * commons:Category:Stamps by country
 * commons:Category:Stamps by year
 * commons:Category:Stamps by topic
 * country & year: commons:Category:Stamps of Canada, 1911 (since for Canada we have a more detailed and combined format of categorization - by country and year together)
 * topic: commons:Category:George V of the United Kingdom on stamps --Michael Romanov (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have begun adding standardized categorization to my uploads. For US stamp images I am also including Stamps of the United States in with the categories. Should I do likewise for other countries? GWillHickers (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, there's no need to add all stamps to the top level Stamps by country category. They should be in the relevant Stamps of xxx category. Please also check that the category you are adding actually exists. Also I think US stamps are by year. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the exact same message that turned up on my user/discussion page in commons. GWillHickers (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, GWillHickers, you misunderstood me. You should select a proper subcategory from an upper category. Please choose the appropriate year subcategory from commons:Category:Stamps by year and the appropriate topic subcategory from commons:Category:Stamps by topic. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And where images are categorised in a sub-category, they are not also placed in the parent category; that is what the sub-categories are for. However, some countries have so few stamps, such as Stamps of Thailand, that a parent category is all there is but for countries where year sub-categories exist they should be used. US stamps have sub-categories by decade year groups. ww2censor (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

eBay as a stamp image source
New development: When listing Ebay as a source for a stamp image do we need the present web address? Seems in a matter of days that address will no long work, as when the lot is sold or otherwise removed so will its address. With this in mind, should one just included Ebay's general address in the source info'? GWillHickers (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an interesting development. I attempted to use an Ebay address in a link, above, just now, but when I attempted to save the message I received a WP warning about using an Ebay address, which is blacklisted. Another important consideration. When listing a commercial address in the source info' for an image, it is usually only a matter of time, as item specific commercial addresses go, before that address is no longer a valid address either.  Also, what is to stop an unscrupulous vendor who uploads images just to get his/her commercial web address into the archives??  GWillHickers (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I am really puzzled. The fact is the article EBay contains dozens of direct links to the website in question, and they do not seem to be blocked. Perhaps, the right place to ask would be MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. --Michael Romanov (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * -- As I mentioned above, when I attempted to include Ebay's general main page address, as well as an item specific Ebay address, both were rejected by WP's system when I attempted to include/save them in a talk-page message. I also tried to add Ebay's general address in the source info' of an image file and it also was rejected with a blacklist warning.  -- However, when I made a test edit and included an Ebay address on a WP Main Page the system accepted it and saved the page with the Ebay link/address -- which doesn't seem to help our case much, as such addresses will still not sit well in a file's summary. GWillHickers (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * eBay auction listings disappear after about 90 days and should not be used for that reason.  Other eBay pages may be more permanent.  Ecphora (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This raises more questions. What about other commercial addresses? It would seem that in a matter of time these addresses would become obsolete also. On that basis should all commercial sources be barred? It would be interesting to see how may stamp images in commons come from commercial sources. -- I have split feelings about including commercial addresses altogether as it would allow an unscrupulous vendor to upload images, with the commercial sources/link, rendering the file in effect a form of advertising and solicitation. -- On the other hand, if we bar commercial sources altogether, we cut ourselves off from a vast source of stamp/cover images that would seldomly or never be found in other places. -- GWillHickers (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me tell you something. On Wikipedia, there is a special template in use called Cite web. If you look at it, you may notice a field called accessdate. This field witnesses that on a certain day a website you visit and refer to in your article was active and valid. And it does not matter if the site would become obsolete soon. The accessdate field confirms that the site existed when you checked it for getting an info for your article. Now let's look at any file page on Commons that was created using eBay items. Here are the search results for these files. You can easily identify a good number of stamps, postcards, etc. retrieved from eBay listings. The eBay links are provided for these items, and there is no problem if they are obsolete (see ). This is because every Commons page has the File history section with the Date/Time field meaning that on this date and at this time the file was uploaded from a source (i.e. eBay in our case) and, of course, was available there at the time of uploading, if even now it disappeared. The latter concept is somewhat similar to the Cite web accessdate concept on WP. Hope you understand what I am talking about. In conclusion, I just want to assure you that there is no fear in providing a web link to the files you upload, including eBay, as long as you honestly indicate the appropriate sources for your files. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just uploaded a New Zealand KGV stamp image file from Ebay and used the cite web template. I looked at several examples in the search results you provided but when I viewed the description pages I did not see a cite web template. Perhaps I did not check enough examples. Regardless, the cite web template seems to be in place correctly and the link to ebay appears in the source field along with the access date. GWillHickers (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what the point is to use the Wikipedia cite web template on Commons. This template was specifically designed for Wikipedia. You should understand that Commons and Wikipedia ARE different resources and websites, and they have different guidelines and policies. Please read what is said about Wikipedia Template:Cite web on Commons. I am quoting here:

This template is used to cite sources in Wikipedia. It is specifically for web sites which are not news sources. It provides lower case parameters only.

A general discussion of the use of templates for adding citation of open-source web content to Wikipedia articles is available at citation templates.
 * So, you cannot use this Wikipedia template for indicating a file source on Commons. It doesn't make any sense. You did not see a cite web template on the Commons file description pages just because cite web is Wikipedia-specific template, and nobody uses it for providing sources for the file uploads on Commons. I did not suggest you adding cite web, if you read my comments properly. And my search results were NOT for identifying cite web in the Commons files at all. What I was talking about below is another tag,   . It's Commons-specific, so please just use it for your Commons uploads, if you find it helpful. --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

May I provide you with one more helpful little thing, if you are going to become a seasoned Commons and WP user? I found a very convenient Commons template for eBay uploads, though so far it has been in a minor use. If you insert a tag   in the Source field of your uploaded file Information template (where 1234567890 could be a number of a particular eBay listing), I hope you can easily avoid indicating a direct web link to an eBay page on Commons. For example, you want to upload this stamp from eBay. After uploading, you insert in the Source field an appropriate wording concerning the eBay upload and that little tag, which in the given situation would look like   because the Item number for this listing is 300457841741. Hope you find this useful. Have a fun with your uploads. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

On "unscrupulous" commercial vendors, keep in mind that they are making irrevocable donations of images, so it seems like a fair trade, like PBS sponsors getting their names and slogans mentioned at the beginning of the program. If donations turn out to be profitable due to people following links from WP, we hope that it will encourage additional donations. Stan (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

VR official and related issues
As far as I understand, this is a postage stamp used as an official one. It's also included in List of postage stamps. However, I don't understand why commons:Category:Stamps of the United Kingdom was for the appropriate VR official image file. Any comments? --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you ask Maidonian directly because he was the one who removed it? ww2censor (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was in both Stamps of the UK and Penny Blacks. I think there should not be anything in Stamps of the UK apart from sub-categories? Maidonian (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense, sure. I think we should keep on maintaining the same approach in categorizing stamp and other images for postal/philatelic articles. By the way, maybe, it would be a good idea to add the VR official to List of British postage stamps. What do you think? Regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While we don't have loads of UK stamps uploaded to the commons, if we follow the US or Canadian models, stamps should be in the year sub-categories and not in the parent category unless they just don't fit. The categorising of the UK stamps could well do with reorganising perhaps in an individual year style. ww2censor (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The VR stamp certainly deserves a place if anything does. I see the Prince Consort Essay is in and that is not even a proper stamp (or an essay for that matter). I have my doubts about that list however as it seems to be developing into an alternative catalogue that is 1) not really viable and 2) more suitable for WikiBooks? Has anyone the nerve to change it to Notable Stamps of the United Kingdom and amputate 90% of the content? Maidonian (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it we are not allowed to use the term notable in an article title and you will notice that List of postage stamps had "notable" removed in this edit back in 2008 so I am not sure a List of notable British postage stamps page would fly for long. You could move the current page to b:World Stamp Catalogue/Great Britain starting a new page as no one has done so yet. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are several 'red' page titles already suggested for United Kingdom stamps in Wikibooks (see World Stamp Catalogue/U). I guess they make sense, don't they? --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will think about that. Regarding Wikimedia categories for British stamps I have to point out that UK collectors always think in terms of the reigns of monarchs, which is how it is currently organised and I think I renamed some of them to make that more consistent a while ago. These reigns could be sub-categorised by year but as stated above there probably isn't the need yet. Maidonian (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree to switch to an individual year style in re-categorizing the UK stamps. As for the nerve, I guess that is a reasonable argument, but what do other editors think? If there is a consensus, we can go forward and make the changes Maidonian suggests. On the other hand, I don't exactly know what the current policy on article titles like notable lists is in EN:WP. For instance, in RU:WP such list titles are not welcome because there is always a question of notability criteria that could be quite subjective unless the criteria are supported by reliable sources. --Michael Romanov (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I restate my opposition to changing the UK stamps on Wikimedia to by year. They work well by reign and in fact there are only a handful of stamps in each of these categories. Also most QEII stamps are still under copyright so this would result in a large number of empty categories in the last 50 years. As for noteable stamps, there actually is a list at List of postage stamps that could mop up the good ones from the other list and I see the VR Official is already in it. Maidonian (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest a compromise here. All year-style subcategories may be sorted into upper categories for separate periods of the reigns of monarchs. I think it's a reasonable solution to the problem. --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But there is no problem to be solved. Have you actually checked how many images are involved here? Apart from Victoria the highest is 7. And unless each monarch conveniently died on 31 December you will have major confusion for each year when there are two monarchs. Maidonian (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of images can be expended in the future. If you don't like the idea of year-by-reign category tree, why cannot we assign single stamps to both year and reign subcategories? And then, the most upper category commons:Category:Stamps of the United Kingdom will contain commons:Category:Stamps of the United Kingdom by year and commons:Category:Stamps of the United Kingdom by reign. --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As to List of British postage stamps vs. List of postage stamps, do you mean that if the former is actually not necessary and can be transposed into a Wikibooks catalog, we can add and leave notable British postage stamps in List of postage stamps only? --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, List of postage stamps redirects from List of notable postage stamps and is described as a list of stamps notable in some way. It could even be renamed list of "important" postage stamps? Maidonian (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In RU-WP we have a 'List of legendary postage stamps', and it's defined in the lead as a list of extremely rare (German Rarität), rare and other notable stamps in various countries. So far this approach has not been opposed. Maybe, something like that could be acceptable in EN-WP? --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think even the UK stamps should have by-year subcategories, and the by-monarch idea seems good too. Even though the number of stamp issues in some years may be small, we're starting to see multiple copies of particular stamps, to illustrate variations, postmarks, etc. There have also been a few times where I've started from a year cat and drilled down looking for something, it was inconvenient to only have a few countries with by-year stamp cats. Stan (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to by year and by reign at the same time although by reign is much fewer categories and inevitably most users adding a stamp won't add both. Maidonian (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not all users have now even a clear understanding of by-country, by-year and by-topic (not to mention others) categories. So, periodical cleanup would be necessary for UK stamps as some of us do now anyway for miscategorized stamps. --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Per Stan's suggestion categorising by year and by reign seems like a good idea. However, some reasonable editors will look at what categories are used on similar images, through some users adding a stamp still won't add both, so periodical cleanup will be inevitable as is the case even now. ww2censor (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WebCite (not Cite Web)
Can I recommend WebCite at www.webcitation.org for preventing linkrot by taking a permanent snap shot of a web page at a particular point in time. They say they are "...a member of the International Internet Preservation Consortium, an on-demand archiving system for webreferences (cited webpages and websites, or other kinds of Internet-accessible digital objects), which can be used by authors, editors, and publishers of scholarly papers and books, to ensure that cited webmaterial will remain available to readers in the future."

Its free and quick and no registration is required. To capture a page just insert the url and an email address (any email address) in the online form. Even in my short Wikipedia career it is surprising how many of the external web pages I have linked to or used as references in articles are no longer available. By using WebCite in addition to the original link, the source will never be lost. This is particularly relevant I think to contentious matters and ephemeral pages like philatelic ones that are created by hobbyists on free space before disappearing without notice when the collector changes his ISP, GeoCities for example where many pages were lost.

Supposedly its only for academic pages but in practice it seems to work for any page including eBay auctions. A few complex pages with lots of Java may not work. Maidonian (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's a great resource in addition to Wayback Machine. --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I also use Wayback Machine, the difference being that with WebCite you choose the time and date that the page is captured. Maidonian (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ebay item template
Michael, we were discussing what to enter in the source fields in commons uploads when you followed with info about cite web. In any event I changed the template on the so it now has the correct ebay item template. Also, a few days ago I uploaded a of two KGV stamps, from Ebay. I merged the two image-files together as one file. Since this file was made from two other image files, I retrieved the two Ebay item numbers (after back tracking through my browser history for some time) and included them both in the source field for the image. I also provided the item number for on the Admirals (philately) page. GWillHickers (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you misunderstood me again. I talked with you about cite web on Wikipedia, not on Commons. Do you know that Wikipedia ≠ Commons? I just compared the WP cite web concept with the File history section with the Date/Time field on Commons. I did not tell you to use cite web on Commons. Re-read my post, please. Also, did you read what I told you concerning ebay item? I am citing:

After uploading, you insert in the Source field an appropriate wording concerning the eBay upload and that little tag, which in the given situation would look like   because the Item number for this listing is 300457841741.
 * Unfortunately, you did not follow my advice because I don't see any wording regarding your eBay upload. Just a bare eBay item number is not enough for wording. Please add that wording. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All of those files last uploaded with that tag have for source information the Ebay item link as well as wording stating that the photo was obtained from Ebay. Also, the description in those files also identifies the stamp, denomination, year, etc. GWillHickers (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Titles of articles in lead
I've noticed that many of the philatelic country articles try to work the article's entire title (in bold) in the lead, such as
 * This is a survey of the postage stamps and postal history of X.

This format is awkward, especially given the lengthy titles for these articles. The self-referrential aspect isn't consistent with other encyclopedic articles. It's also unncessary as it's obvious from the title of the article what the nature of the article is. But perhaps most compelling, this is discouraged by Manual of Style (lead section) which states that such repetitive use is unnecessary and that, where done, it should not appear in bold:


 * Descriptive titles
 * If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. So, for example, Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers begins with:


 * A dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristic is its electrical impedance versus frequency.

Ecphora (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ww2censor Suggested that I bold some of the ones I have done which I did but I think you may be right about the bolding Ecphora. It is also a little repetitious but that first sentence serves an important purpose in enabling a link to be made to postage stamp, postal history and the name of the country in the first line so I think it should stay, even if not in bold. Maidonian (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I invented the "this is a survey" phrasing, at least partly because I wanted to follow the then-recommendation of always repeating the title in the lede, but have never liked it. I agree that the three key phrases should have links, but if anybody has a more elegant phrasing, I'd be glad of it.  (I note that "History of " articles just leap into the text, but I don't think the philatelic article works as well that way.) Stan (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some examples of articles that don't use the "survey" formula in the lead, but just summarize the key points, and, I believe, read just fine: Ecphora (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Postage stamps and postal history of Sweden
 * Postage stamps and postal history of Hong Kong
 * Postage stamps and postal history of Mexico
 * Postage stamps and postal history of Latvia
 * I would support Ecphora. The phrase "this is a survey" does not seem to be encyclopedic and sounds too trivial for an English Wikipedia article (though it could be OK on Simple English Wikipedia). Contrary to that, summarizing the key points is what we should seek to write in the lead, since a distinct definition line would be impossible to compose for the postage stamps and postal history of X articles. --Michael Romanov (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons categories for U.S. stamps
Yes, it would be nice to have a better standard developed for the placement of categories. As most of my uploads are US stamp images with a historical theme and while in the process of fixing source and license information I am trying to get the categories in line with some sort of standard indeed. For the categories of most US stamps they will have both 'Stamps of the United States' along with "xxxx stamps", where 'xxxx' is the year rounded off to the earliest decade. Stamps with Washington and Lincoln will get an additional 'George Washington on stamps' or 'Abraham Lincoln on stamps'. Also, those stamps with a decidingly historical theme should also get the 'History of the United States on stamps' category it would seem. -- It should be mentioned here that there is also the redundant 'Stamps depicting Abraham Lincoln' category while there is no  'stamps depicting George Washington'  category. I checked both types of the categories for Lincoln. The 'Stamps depicting Abraham Lincoln' category has 27 stamp images in its gallery while the 'Abraham Lincoln on stamps' gallery only contains 6. Those which I have uploaded did not receive any category for Lincoln from me originally though lately I have added a few. Since the "on stamps" phrase is used most often it would seem that Lincoln stamps should receive the 'Abraham Lincoln on stamps' category. GWillHickers (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the convenience of the other editors, may I ask you to provide 'blue' links for the above mentioned categories, please? --Michael Romanov (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. -- GWillHickers (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked on Commons to move the duplicate Stamps depicting Abraham Lincoln to Abraham Lincoln on stamps. In general, History of the United States on stamps should be the upper category for George Washington on stamps, Abraham Lincoln on stamps and alike. Ideally, this upper category should not contain stamps with historical persons depicted on them. It should be used for stamps showing certain events in the history of the United States but not portraits of single persons. Also, I would exclude stamps depicting Christopher Columbus from History of the United States on stamps. Neither the Christopher Columbus article, nor Category:Christopher Columbus on EN:WP and commons:Category:Christopher Columbus are linked to any categories associated with the history of the United States. Currently, many stamps you uploaded on Commons are examples of a mess in categorization and description, sorry. See for instance commons:File:Christopher Columbians Issue 1892-8c.jpg. --Michael Romanov (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How does two categories for Lincoln, both of them using the word stamps, come to be created in the first place? While I have always acknowledged inaccuracies and outright mistakes in using Wikipedia's redundant and disorganized category structure please be reminded that the greater and far more serious mess here is obviously one that was the result of various editors who have created the hundreds(!!) of categories for philately, some of which are obviously redundant and unnecessary. Many dozens of these categories only contain one image. For Canada stamps (and other countries) it looks like someone is trying to make a category for each and every year: Stamps of Canada, 1926, '1927, '1928, '1929, '1930, '1931... Romania has 68 different year categories. -- Its good to see experienced editors making strides in correcting the greater problem also. It seems that much more than moving a category for Lincoln needs to be done here. GWillHickers (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two Lincoln categories have been merged by a Commons admin, and we have now only one working and valid category: Abraham Lincoln on stamps. The redundant Lincoln category was perhaps created by a sloppy user who might be lazy or ignorant enough not to check the existing topical stamp categories. Re "hundreds(!!) of categories for philately", I don't see a big problem here. Yes, some of them may be redundant, but as soon as this is detected, such categories are merged, as is the case of two Lincoln categories we were just witnesses of. However, we have a robust overall categorization system for philately on Commons. And I believe by-year categories are a must on Commons, since this concept is widely used for other topics, just look at commons:Category:Categories by year (flat list). --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Rural Address Property IDentification
Someone tagged Rural Address Property IDentification with the project. RAPID has nothing at all to do with mail delivery - the only people able to locate a property via its RAPID id are emergency services. I don't want to remove another project's tag without consultation, so here I am. dramatic (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to consult on this one; the tag, as well as the Category: Postal system of New Zealand tag on the article itself, weren't place by philatelic editors and appear to be clearly inappropriate. I'll remove them.  Ecphora (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Categorization for Postage stamps and postal history of X
First of all, I would like to welcome BlackJack who is back on the project pages. Hope you, BlackJack, will help us in resolving few problems we currently experience in the articles created and edited within the framework of WikiProject Philately.

As to the subject, I have a question. How shall we categorize all country survey articles? For example, do we need to have for the Malaysia article both Malaysia and Category:Postage stamps of Malaysia. The latter is a subcategory of the former anyway. At the moment, we see both Malaysia category and Malaysia article on the same upper category page. To fix this, I suggest removing Malaysia from the article page. Accordingly, we may adopt this categorization approach for all country articles. Regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Ecphora (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I had thought to move in that direction but for now I'm seeing what we have and what we lack.  For example, there is no country survey of France yet unless it's under another category somewhere.  Michael, thank you for your kind words.  :-)  Regards. Jack | talk page 17:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge
Comments appreciated regarding the merge of Errors, freaks, and oddities and Postage stamp error at Talk:Postage stamp error. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
I changed the auto-archiving from 250 days to 120 days; 8 months just seem way too long to keep any discussions live. I don't recall when or who set this up and if there was any agreement on this topic but if an issue have not been addressed in 4 months I doubt they will ever be discussed further. Any objections? ww2censor (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I set up the archiving bot just yesterday. I picked a long period for a first pass, intended to clear out everything from before this year, and figured to reset it today for a shorter period. Which you've already done. You might want to start a new archive page for 2010; if so, just change the counter to 7 and add a link to /Archive 7 in the archive box.
 * —WWoods (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

List of birds on stamps
I found two acronyms on pages listing birds on stamps by country: NOR and AIR, e.g. see the Type column in List of birds on stamps of Spanish Sahara. What do they mean? --Michael Romanov (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that means "Normal" and "Air" mail. Great list btw! SteveStrummer (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And what catalog is meant as Mitchell? Michel catalog?! Then, this must be corrected in all 50 by-country articles, I guess. --Michael Romanov (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One more flaw. Sta. & Gib. must be changed for Sta. Gib. since this stands for Stanley Gibbons. Again, all 50 by-country articles should be corrected as far as I understand. --Michael Romanov (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Philately articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Philately articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

List of fish on stamps of Australia
I got this undeleted and found a number of stamps that could be included, now listed under external links. I'm not really interested in it, though, I was just fixing the inconsistency in deletions that happened. So if you want this article to stay around, now's the time to make sure. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest contacting directly the editors who create articles like this:, , . --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Userbox for WikiProject Philately?
I see there is a Userbox section on the project page which has a couple of varieties, but I wonder why there isn't one that actually says "Member of WikiProject Philately"-? Is this on purpose? SteveStrummer (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this Philately member what you are looking for? It is found here just above the userboxes or do you want a userbox version? ww2censor (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant something like: which would point to this project page instead of the start-class Philately article. 03:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)SteveStrummer (talk)


 * How about this? ww2censor (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Beautiful! (And fast, too!) Thank you for doing that :) SteveStrummer (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It could do with some refining but just add this User WikiProject Philately to your userboxes and if I have time I will improve it. ww2censor (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan postage articles
We have two articles Postage stamps and postal history of Pakistan and Postage stamps of Pakistan with much common ground. The latter is the more developed article but it covers more than just postage stamps so I think it should have the title of the former; and the former should be merged into it. Is there any good reason why there should be two articles: e.g., has this been discussed before and a consensus reached? Jack | talk page 20:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I already posted on this topic about 5 months ago at Talk:Postage stamps and postal history of Pakistan but no one even commented. As I said then, if there are to be two distinct articles with little or no overlapping coverage, then they should be Postage stamps of Pakistan and Postal history of Pakistan and Postage stamps and postal history of Pakistan should be a dab page. However, I would support a merge into Postage stamps and postal history of Pakistan. ww2censor (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of a merge into Postage stamps and postal history of Pakistan. --Michael Romanov (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. I agree that a merger into Postage stamps and postal history of Pakistan is the best solution.  I'll do it according to the guidelines in WP:MM so that it's all right and proper.  Regards.  Jack | talk page 05:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

NB. This discussion is continuing at the talk page of the destination article per WP:MM. Please add your comments there. Jack | talk page 05:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger completed. Jack | talk page 09:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought we had been more inclining to have two separate articles on Postage stamps of Pakistan and Postal history of Pakistan in this discussion. Do you plan to separate Postage stamps and postal history of Pakistan? The current article is quite long and has two distinct major sections on history and stamps. Both could be easily separated, to my mind. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see from the above and the talk page discussion there was consensus to have one article; Jack, Michael and I were all for the idea or merging rather than separate articles with nobody complaining. ww2censor (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Source for books and articles
An excellent source of printed references to add to articles is the American Philatelic Research Library on line catalog, located here. Ecphora (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Postal issue
I added an entry to the disambiguation page for Issue, noting the postage stamp definition. Please embellish if possible. It seems like this might be an article itself if anyone is interested in starting it. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems more suited to a Wiktionary term rather than warranting a wikipedia article. ww2censor (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons category move
I've proposed moving the category Military post to Military mail as the two terms are quite different and the later is empty and a soft redirect to the other. You may want to comment on the Military post talk page. ww2censor (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent titles
In the two categories Category:Postage stamps by country and Category:Postal history by country we have the same 249 articles and, apart from a few exceptions, all are called Postage stamps and postal history of X. For the sake of consistency, the exceptions should be made to comply but, because of existing redirects, five of them cannot be moved. These are:


 * Postage stamps of Antioquia which should be moved to Postage stamps and postal history of Antioquia
 * Postage stamps of Cundinamarca → Postage stamps and postal history of Cundinamarca
 * Postage stamps of Dalmatia → Postage stamps and postal history of Dalmatia
 * Postage stamps of Tripolitania → Postage stamps and postal history of Tripolitania
 * Postal history of Heligoland → Postage stamps and postal history of Heligoland

I don't have admin functionality and can't supersede the redirects. Can any of you help, please? Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 13:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is nobody with admin rights here in the project, you should follow the WP:REQMOVE procedure. --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Our own Stan is an admin and can do it for us, otherwise I have some good relationships and can ask them directly as these will not be controversial moves. ww2censor (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. (I wonder if there are publications on the postal history of Cundinamarca...) Stan (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thanks, Stan.  Jack | talk page 08:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Por supuesto! And in English!!


 * 1883 - The Typeset Provisionals of Cundinamarca, Alan D. Angon., 1972.
 * Manuscript Cancels of Cundinamarca, Frome, Howard., 1993 Jun.
 * Dieter Bortfeldt, The workbook: notes on reprints and forgeries of Colombian stamps. Part II, The sovereign states of Colombia, Antioquia, Bolivar, Boyacá, Cundinamarca, Tolima and Panamá, Colombian Philatelic Research Society, Bogota, 2007. Ecphora (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all of you, especially Stan for doing the necessary. I've noticed that many of our articles have very rudimentary source and reference sections, Postage stamps and postal history of Cundinamarca being a case in point.  I've expanded that article's sources and included Ecphora's books as additional reading.  Jack | talk page 08:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! It will be an awesome day in the philately project when we have material from (and can cite) every work in the philatelic literature. Stan (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stan, there is one more inconsistent title, People's Commissariat for Post and Telegraph, that should be People's Commissariat for Posts and Telegraphs, according to this discussion. Would you do me a great favor and process the requested move? Thanks. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No problemo, is done. Stan (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An additional request, Stan: Talk:People's Commissariat for Post and Telegraph → Talk:People's Commissariat for Posts and Telegraphs. Thank you! --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Italian post in Saseno for deletion
Hi all. I found this on my talk page and have responded accordingly at the deletion page. As it directly concerns a WP:PHIL article, please consider the nomination and decide if you wish to comment. You need to bear in mind that the eventual decision may create a precedent re other philatelic articles. Thanks. Jack | talk page 09:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Italian post in Saseno, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Italian post in Saseno until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bongo  matic  03:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)