Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archive Created Sun 13 August 2006

Philatelists category

(this discussion has in part been rescued from a wider topic now in the archive)

I also find some inconsistencies in the categorisations. One instance: why is the Category:Stamp designers not divided by country yet the Category:Philatelists is divided by country? The designers have 41 pages listed without subcategories (I think that is good and clear) yet the philatelists, that are only 23 pages, are divided into 6 country subcategories. To my way of thinking the country divisions might only be needed when the number of pages in a category gets too large to handle and IMHO 23 pages do not need 6 subcategories. Besides which, if I am trying to find a philatelist, I may not know where they came from, but I will likely know their name, so removal of country subcategories in Category:Philatelists would get my vote for simplicity. Maybe there are other examples where we are having to dig too far to find what we want. I hope you see my thinking here. ww2censor 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

More I just discovered that the subCategory: American philatelists was discussed recently [1] for deletion but it was kept. However it seems that discussion took place with little contribution from Philately project members other than Jack who withdrew the nomination and sorted by six new very small sub-categories. What is the use of six new very small sub-categories? I don't get it. Unfortunately there is a Wikipedia problem that some decisions are made by people who have little knowledge of a subject and then we (those interested) are stuck with that decision. However, we unfortunately cannot watch everything that affects our own interests either. ww2censor 16:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re the "philatelists" category, I admit that backfired on me because and I could not be bothered to argue about it at the CFD. I agree with you that there should be a single category for philatelists. I suggest we raise it as a project discussion and then go back armed with a project consensus. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we please continue this discussion as an independent topic so that we can go back to CFD with a consensus? The proposal is that all articles re philatelists should reside in category:Philatelists and that all the sub-categories of that category should be deleted as they serve no useful purpose to the project or the readership. Thanks. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Support I fully support getting rid of the few country categories for philatelists. Do you want me to nominate them for deletion, or do we need to wait a while because one sub-category was recently discussed? ww2censor 16:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Merge all philatelist categories and get rid of the subs which add no value to the project. In future we must resist attempts by CFD people to materially alter categories being discussed. --AlbertMW 06:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Having read the original CFD discussion re American philatelists, the growth of these extra categories should never have been allowed to happen. The American category was deliberately populated during the discussion to try and influence the outcome and, as is nearly always the case, it was done by people with no interest in the project. We should definitely place all philatelist articles in one category only as there is no justification or usefulness for more than that. I can well understand why Jack abandoned his earlier attempt but I think that now we have a project consensus of four in support, we can take this forward on that basis. I would like to nominate ww2censor to take it forward. --GeorgeWilliams 06:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem Unless Albert knows how, none of us understand CFD, especially for a group item! I'll try and get back to you on this. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Page Set Up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_30 so please be prepared to give additional views if required. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Feedback from CfD Discussion

Could project members please consider this which is in the deletion discussion where, incidentally, there seems to be strong support thus far for our proposal:

Support Subcategorizing by nationality is a custom at Wikipedia not a strict policy. It grew out of the need to subcategorize before there were category table of contents. Also, it is possible to merge all the categories and also keep the subcategories populated. If this were done, {{Allincluded}} should be put on Category:Philatelists. People looking to browse through all Philatelists would be able to, and people looking for Philatelists from specific countries would find them. It is a win-win solution. If this is agreeable to the wikiproject, then there is no need to even continue this CFD because nothing will be deleted or renamed. -- Samuel Wantman 22:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have an open mind on this and want to know what others think first. The reason for my open position is that I can see a long term use for {{Allincluded}} even if in this specific case it is not acceptable to us. --AlbertMW 05:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea but on this occasion I would stick with the original proposal and get rid of these particular sub-cats. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I never saw that template before and it obviously has its uses but for the moment I too think we should go with our original suggestion. If the category gets too big then we could always consider adding this template later on ww2censor 13:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks good but not this time. I would like those categories removed. --GeorgeWilliams 10:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the nationality categories is problematic. All Category:People by nationality are broken into subcategories by profession. By not keeping the subcategories by nationality, you are removing the ability to categorize philatelists by nationality. I strongly suggest NOT removing the subcategories, and going with duplication instead. In a short time someone will recreate these categories to complete the nationality by occupation categorization scheme. Why fight it? -- Samuel Wantman 04:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, I think the underlying reason in this case is that those sub-cats were foisted onto us by the CfD page activists including "our friend". If you see the archived discussion about philatelic categories you will know what I mean; the thing was that at the time I just could not be bothered to argue. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

RESULT of CfD Discussion

All philatelist sub-categories have been merged. I put a thank you message on the admin's page. Let us all celebrate the successful conclusion of our "conspiracy"! --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion re category:Postage stamps

It has been suggested above that the technical articles re postage stamps should be moved back into this category from the design one. I have no problem with that except that it still leaves this category very heavy with articles about individual stamps and issues that are hard to trace via a long list. I would therefore suggest that we create two sub-categories within category:Postage stamps for the British and American articles - category: British postage stamps and category:US postage stamps. In time, similar categories could be added for other countries depending on volume of articles. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Of the 84 pages currently listed in the category, how many do you think can be moved in these 2 new subcategories? ww2censor 22:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not for me to answer, really, but I've just done a quick scan of the immediately recognisable British ones. There seem to be about 18 British (home and abroad) that could be grouped together and there is potential for many more. I don't know a lot about US stamps, but it looks as if there could be more than the British at present. On that basis, I would support Jack's idea but I don't think we should create sub-cats for any other countries yet without prior discussion. I think category:Postage stamps should be about stamp production as well as stamp types - it should be about postage stamps, period, not just about one aspect of them. Incidentally, I would expect to add British stamps to this as part of my project. --AlbertMW 06:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea to do an analysis of it and get a league table up. Quite a few are "multi-national" such as definitives and commemoratives. I'll do that this evening and put it on here.

By the way, the talk page is getting too big so I'm going to archive it above this present discussion. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Pre-empting Jack here, but the winner is GB with 20; then multi-national with 18; USA with 16. The others are: Canada 4; Australia 2; France 2; Germany 2; India 2; Argentina 1; Austria 1; British Guiana 1; Hawaii 1; Ireland 1; Italy 1; Malaysia 1; Mauritius 1; Portugal 1; Slovenia 1; Sweden 1; Switzerland 1; Uganda 1.

So I propose we open sub-cats for GB and US and leave the rest in category:Postage stamps. And we move the stuff in design back and also make design a sub-cat of postage stamps, especially as Jack says it has potential and I agree with him. What do you think? I'll give you till Sat 5 August to decide or then I'll go ahead and do it. --AlbertMW 19:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In my mind anything less than 8-12 really does not deserve, or warrant, its own category, so I am happy to endorse AlbertMW's suggestion in this area. BTW should the new category title not be Category:Postage stamps of Great Britain and Category: Postage stamps of the USA? The category name starts with Postage stamps so I think the category should too if possible. ww2censor 01:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WW2 re the names. The numbers are as Albert says except that the majority of "multi-nationals" are properly generic (e.g., definitives) so I think subsets for GB and US are justified, especially as there is growth potential. I think a dozen is the minimum to justify a category unless there is recognised potential. I'll make a diary note as per proposed deadline and do the changes that weekend.

Presumably we are also in agreement re the design category: that it is moved to become a subset of "postage stamps"? I have no problem with doing that or if you like we can form a consensus and try to CFD it. I don't mind either way. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 04:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Support CFD and make new names as suggested by myself. ww2censor 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Although I think a design category may have some mileage in the very long term I would delete it for now and put everything postage stamp related in that category. Need to make clear in the category that it is a repository for everything connected with postage stamps and not just their history and topicality as that imposes limitations on the scope and forces us to look elsewhere for other categories like design or manufacture or technology. Agree with sub-cats by country (GB and USA only at present) and agree with naming convention suggested by ww2censor. --AlbertMW 06:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Support new GB and US sub-categories as these will definitely grow and I think we should create extra country categories as and when each can contain a minimum twelve articles (I always think a dozen is a nice number!). Agree with naming convention suggested too. I also agree with delete for the design category which has no real use that I can see though I can understand why it was created. --GeorgeWilliams 07:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Progress We did agree to give this until Sat 5 August to be decided. There is already a clear consensus of 4-0 re the GB and US sub-cats, but using the names suggested by ww2censor, not those originally suggested by me. Consensus re CfD of design category is 3-1 with me in the minority. Unless the votes change dramatically in the meantime, I'll attend to this next weekend. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Can this now be archived? Unless anyone objects, I will archive this topic next weekend (i.e., Sat 12 August) as the page has become very long again. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Postal History (2)

We are getting sidetracked again so I am taking Jack's original comments about Postal History into a new discussion topic. Jack had this to say:

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.

We should use those statements as the basis of the current topic. --AlbertMW 07:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment In my view, we have got things arse-about-face in this project. The project name should be Stamp Collecting. Philately should be a sub-project of that as should Postal History, Postal System, Airmail, the lot. Philately is the study of stamps but it has evolved out of the collection of stamps, just as the study of postal history has done. If we go down to proximate cause re most of these category issues we are raising, I believe it is because we are fundamentally flawed in having relegated Stamp Collecting to be a by-product of Philately.

From the number of references to it throughout the project, it appears all the main contributors possess an excellent book called The Stamp Atlas by Stuart Rossiter and John Flower. This book makes clear that stamp collecting is the source activity from which the other studies have developed. It describes philately and postal history as separate but equal sub-divisions of stamp collecting.

The Stamp Atlas is a study of postal history but with strong geographic overtones. It is also a study of the stamps and issues of each country or entity. In a sense, it would provide essential background information to each page of a stamp album that is organised by country. It seems to me that the category:Philately by country is an attempt, subconscious or otherwise, to recreate on Wikipedia the scope and substance of this book. Many of the articles already emulate the book's achievements.

Under category:Postal system there is category:Postal systems by country. This, along with category:Philately by country is also a sub-cat of category:Categories by country which is a Wiki-wide enterprise.

Proposal A Rename category:Philately by country as category:Stamp collecting by country. Make it into a sub-cat of both category:Stamp collecting and of category:Categories by country. Leave it in category:Philately. This category should contain any article that is essentially about one country's postage stamps even if it also includes its postal history.

Proposal B Create category:Postal history by country for any article that is essentially about postal history even if it also covers the stamps. Make it into a sub-cat of both category:Postal history and of category:Categories by country. Add it to category:Philately.

Proposal C Add category:Postal systems by country to category:Philately. Leave it in both category:Postal system and category:Categories by country.

If we have an article that covers two or more of the topics postage stamps, postal history and postal system then add that article to two or more categories as appropriate. According to wiki guidelines I have been reading, an article should be spread across all relevant categories and not pigeon-holed in one.

Notice I have left category:Postage stamps out of this. This is because we have agreed to use that for articles about stamp design and manufacture and about individual stamps or issues. When we talk about stamps in the sense of stamp collecting, we have to take the "stamp album" view that it is about all the stamps issued by a country.

I see Jack suggested an end date of Sat 26 August for this discussion and I agree with that as the deadline for the proposals I have described here. --AlbertMW 08:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it would follow that we should consider changing the name of the project to Stamp Collecting and making category:Stamp collecting the root? That might be taking things too far, I reckon. --AlbertMW 09:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments re Proposal A I don't see why not have category:Postage stamps by country instead of category:Stamp collecting by country which doesn't really convey what you are trying to achieve. Even with this name it could go into category:Stamp collecting as well as on the root.

Comments re Proposals B & C I agree.

Comments re root category The subject of this project is a hobby and as far as I'm concerned the hobby is stamp collecting. Philately is one aspect of it. We could make category:Stamp collecting the root and demote category:Philately to level 1, then we could put all the technical, design and manufacture articles back in there. But that would leave a problem re what to do with everything now in category:stamp collecting. I agree but I think it's as well to leave this alone. We can work things out with philately as the root. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Further comment re root category In view of my proposal in the general categories topic above to introduce category:Technical aspects of philately I do not think we should change the root to category:Stamp collecting --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all above comments by BlackJack and recommend immediate action to finalise this and, like the technical philately thing above, put it to bed so we can all move on. I say we do this next weekend - Sat 5 August.

Comment re spreading articles across multiple categories - this in fact is in line with Wiki guidelines; the site actually encourages many lines of enquiry to a subject. --AlbertMW 06:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong support Lets get it done this weekend and move forward. --GeorgeWilliams 11:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can this now be archived? Unless anyone objects, I will archive this topic next weekend (i.e., Sat 12 August) as the page has become very long again. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Would people please not randomly cut-n-paste to make the archives!? If the archive is created "Sun July 30", the main talk page should not contain any postings dated prior to 7/30. If there are active discussions going on, then it's soon to archive, even if the talk page is long; for one thing, archives don't show up on watchlists. Stan 21:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The only discussions in the archive are completed ones. Current discussions have been kept on the talk page. The fact that the archive was created on a certain date is irrelevant as the need is to keep current topics in view and store the rest. You can always add an archive to a watchlist, surely? Or a topic can be resurrected. Anyway, bottom line is that the talk page was, as you say, too long and was becoming unreadable: it's still too long which is partly why I have this morning being trying to encourage a speedy resolution to some of these topics. --AlbertMW 06:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So the topic including disparagement of my personal competence and character was "completed" before I was able to log back in and see what was being said about me? One of the reasons to make date-based cutoffs is to avoid the appearance of editing selectively to promote particular POVs. Stan 16:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the topics into the archive and I did wonder about that particular one but you did say you were through and I decided to go ahead. I don't blame you for being "through". The CfD page clowns managed to get me to resign a couple of months ago but my chums on the cricket project persuaded me to return and fight from within. I know you don't like me or what I do but I'm glad you're back. You are a contributor. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can this now be archived? Unless anyone objects, I will archive this topic next weekend (i.e., Sat 12 August) as the page has become very long again. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Categorization philosophy

AlbertMW is right, hard to stay away. :-) As the risk of being dismissed as "typically American" (no prejudice there, eh?), I offer a couple things to keep in mind:

any design needs to be "future-proofed" - although there is never any guarantee that future editors won't come in and rearrange everything out of ignorance, categories whose pages include a precise definition tend to be more stable over time, especially if they can refer back to a WP article that justifies the definition.
designs should be consistent with the rest of WP - there are now lots of editors, some armed with bots, who ruthlessly enforce general consistency, and are not interested in what the "philately project" thinks. For instance, an article title with "USA" or "Great Britain" instead of "United States" and "United Kingdom" will only last until the next sweep.
nobody respects grand designs - after all, I spent a lot of time thinking out a grand design, only to hear that the result was a "horrendous mess". The next batch of editors will look the same way on the current initiative, irrespective of much thought goes into it. (This is a problem that happens all across WP, and for which nobody has a good solution, despite much discussion.)

Stan 22:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And as if just to underscore my point, my watchlist shows some random editor removing "philately by country" categories from articles... Stan 22:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for the "typically American" remark which was written in the heat of the moment; as you must have noticed it was removed soon afterwards. I actually know several Americans and the remark is not worthy of them. I could have said "typically English" and it would in fact have been more apt in my personal experience.

I'm sure we are all well aware that future editors will rearrange things but that is both their prerogative and their right, as per Wiki guidelines. The present round of structural change is being done through a desire to knock the project into shape for at least the medium term and to give us a framework within which we can all work for now. I expect to move on from this when I have done my GB work; I've no doubt Jack will go back to the cricket project before long; George is not apparently a keen computer user; and I don't know what ww2censor has planned once he finishes his work on Ireland's postal history. So, within a few months, you might be all alone again until some more new brooms sweep in.

I noticed your suggestion previously that a category purpose should be included on each category page and I agree with you. I'm actually waiting to see what the final structure is as I don't yet if some might go in CfD.

I'm glad you have returned to the project and I look forward to more of your contributions, most of which are excellent and all of which are useful. Your images especially. No hard feelings. --AlbertMW 06:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I can identify Stan's "random editor". I found this on my talk page:

Hi,

I went through Category:Philately by country and removed all articles who's subject is unrelated to philately. Note that most of the remaining articles doesn't belong to this category either because the name of the category implies that it should include articles like Philately in Albania to Philately in Zimbabve. Most of articles that are now in Category:Philately by country belongs to Category:Philately or to some new sub-category that you could create.

Hope this helped. --Ante Perkovic 22:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No less than 64 articles have been "removed". I suppose he/she was trying to help. I find it amusing really after all that trouble I went to. I think we will have to identify these things via the lists and my contributions page and pull the postal sections out of them into new articles, like I had to do with Aden. I'm going to put it on the backburner for now as a slow, gradual, long-term exercise and just take it nice and easy. Plenty of other things to be done. I'll write back to Ante and say thanks.

Welcome back, Stan. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm perfectly happy to split articles up, but inevitably other editors come along and say "these are too short to be separate articles, they should be merged", and then the cycle starts all over again. I don't have any answers; some of the cycles are so long, 1-2 years, that only a handful of WP editors have even been active long enough to realize that all the changes have brought things right back to their starting points. One of the reasons that I've left some things undone is that the structure wasn't so obviously right that every random editor would support it, nor were enough participants available to enforce the less-obvious decisions. For instance, based on previous experience with other articles, the GB/UK naming thing has a good chance of turning into a huge fight filling dozens of talk pages; not how I wanted to spend my own personal WP editing time. So it's not just a matter of making good choices, but planning how to maintain them over time. Stan 16:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of British people hate the UK as a term. We think of ourselves as English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. Or Yorkshire, which is a special case. ;-)

I've created a new list on "philately by country" which includes all the 64 articles that contain postal sections but have country titles. At least we know which they are and can make use of them as we see fit. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can this now be archived? Unless anyone objects, I will archive this topic next weekend (i.e., Sat 12 August) as the page has become very long again. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This Weekend

Reading the discussion topics on this page already, it seems to me that we have resolved to take certain actions this weekend of Sat 5 August. I would like to summarise these here and make sure that this is what we are going to do.

First up is to get a resolution to the "Philatelists" discussion that is still going on, though it looks as if support for our motion is quite strong. I am amazed to see the opposition accusing us of hatching a conspiracy theory! Can you believe that!

Second is around ww2censor's suggestion that the two new sub-cats of category:Postage stamps be called Category:Postage stamps of Great Britain and Category:Postage stamps of the United States. I think we all agreed on that and we are due to create those cats this weekend and move the British and American stamps into them.

Third is the proposal to get rid of category:Postage stamp design but this has now been overtaken by the proposal to introduce category:Technical aspects of philately. It would be best to do a speedy rename here and save having to transfer all the articles.

Fourth is the "by country" series of proposals listed in "Postal History (2)" and this means another rename and a wider spread of the "by country" types across three classifications.

Unless anyone can add anything significant, we should do all of this over the weekend and put the whole thing to bed. We can then get on with building the articles and I would strongly recommend that we live with the revised structure for several months to give it chance to settle down. --AlbertMW 11:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty much happy with all that. We can move forward and get some work done. I wonder if Stan is around to give his viewpoint as he has been around the project longer than most. Regarding some of the opposition to the "Philatelists" category merge, I too am surprised by some of the reasoning. Just because George V of the United Kingdom is a philatelist does not in any way imply there will be tremendous growth in the category listings. What nonsense!! Can you imagine adding Elizabeth II as a philatelist because she now owns the Royal collection? ww2censor 15:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple bits. "USA" should be "United States"; see Category:United States and its subcats and consider the odds of successfully doing one category differently. :-) "Great Britain" is potentially kindling too, as you can see from Category:United Kingdom; is it worth fighting over? I'm not clear on whether "Stamp collecting" is still proposed to be base instead of "Philately"; I favor the latter for the same reason we have "Astronomy" as base category instead of "Telescope viewing" :-) , and Category:Numismatics instead of "coin collecting". No opinion on philatelist cats, I burned out on people cat arguments long ago. I'm not enthused about the suggested technical article cat names, but don't have any better ideas to suggest. I'm also unclear about what exactly is proposed for "by country" material, recap would be appreciated. Stan 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at the country name thing since Stan first raised it a few days ago and I'm afraid he is right that someone somewhere will blow Great Britain and replace it with the (y)UK because that is WP convention; just as United States always overrides USA, though that is nothing like so bad. I think we should use United States and either just accept UK or try and use British.

Stan, as I understand it we dropped "stamp collecting" as the root and the project because it would be too much trouble to change it, for one thing, and in any case it isn't really incorrect as the terms have become almost interchangeable, though I think most of us see ourselves as "stamp collectors" ahead of "philatelists". I see myself as "stamp collector with historical interest in the stamps I collect", which are mainly period pieces (e.g., issued in WWII).

For the "by country" types, we seem to have settled on Albert's proposals B & C as he originally wrote them; and his proposal A as written except that we will have category:Postage stamps by country instead of his suggested category:Stamp collecting by country. Actually it would be good if Albert could confirm that latter one as it isn't completely clear above.

As I instigated the whole category change scenario, I volunteer to implement the changes and I'll write to you all when I've done it providing everything is okay. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess those proposals are OK. Incidentally, my desire to have integrated accounts that include both stamps and postal history is inspired by works like Winthrop Boggs' book for Canada, which does a really fine job of relating the stamps to the specific needs of the time. I don't think we yet have enough experience to tell people how a stamp/postal history distinction should work in practice, I think you'd need at least 4-5 article pairs to see how it works in the WP context. Stan 13:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer "stamp collector". My interest is in British stamps, again more from the historical angle really but more around the when and the why they were issued. I agree with category:Postage stamps by country instead of category:Stamp collecting by country. Also, it looks like my GB articles may have to be renamed so I'll think about the titles. I'm doing some work offline on the main article but it won't be ready for a while. --AlbertMW 11:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For me, I prefer philatelist because I actually don't collect stamps per se, but I study and collect postal history and am interested in the wider aspects of the mail and postal services. The stamps really don't interest me for my own collection. I know Stans point about postal history and stamp articles and must agree with him. At the moment there are few articles that need two separate articles so a combined "postage stamps and postal history" one should do. However, in the case of Ireland, I have already written the Postage stamps of Ireland (it is 31 kilobytes long) and because I know the subject well, have lots of reference material and the topics are long (if one wants some sort of completeness), two articles are needed. I don't see that in the immediate future of many other countries unless we get some really great input from other editors with decent knowledge. Those of us here cannot possibly do it on our own. BTW, the Ireland stamps article took me 3 months to write to my reasonable satisfaction. I am definitely in favour of philately as the root and not stamp collecting. In my mind philately encompasses stamp collecting, but stamp collecting does not encompass philately but I will live with the final selection. ww2censor 16:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Can this now be archived? Unless anyone objects, I will archive this topic next weekend (i.e., Sat 12 August) as the page has become very long again. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.