Postage stamps of Ireland is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 14, 2007. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Let me be the first to say: very nice!! I just have one suggestion - there are links to common words like "acquire" and "challenge" that aren't really necessary - worse, they don't usually link to the topics you think. If you like, I'll do a pass that fixes up some that kind of style detail, and then I think it's worth nominating as a featured article. Stan 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone give the reasoning why the name Ireland is never put on the Irish postage stamps, I can't find it in the article. One would think that both names Eire and Ireland would appear printed on the postage stamps, if only to promote the name of Ireland, which is the international name, vis a vis tourism, broader recognition and awareness, etc. etc. I remember once meeting a Asian stamp-collector who didn't know that Ireland was Eire.- MelForbes 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
A couple of things, as I find them:
More if I find anything. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Your changes in response to the above look good; that miniature sheet is interesting and answers my question.
One more item: in the airmail paragraph, should that last stamp price be "6p" or "6d"? Mike Christie (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Another question. This is hard to understand:
What does "without knowing the date of use and specific colour" mean? Do you mean that if you know when the label was used, and you know the colour, then you can tell what amount of postage due was being collected, but otherwise you cannot? If so, what does it mean to say that the Irish pingin amount was stated on the label? Surely that would be enough? I'm sure I'm missing something here; if you explain it I'll try to rewrite it. Mike Christie (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I changed "190 degrees" to "180 degrees" in the booklet section; I was pretty sure that was just a typo, but I mention it here just in case. Mike Christie (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I did some modifications to the watermark section, including eliminating some white space. This has made the picture run into the next section, which is a little ugly. You may want to tweak this some more, though this shouldn't cause any opposes at FAC; I don't like it in my own articles though sometimes I find I have to live with it. Anyway, you might just want to revert my changes here, though I do think there were some problems of sequence to be fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You have clearly deliberately treated "stationery" as a plural noun. Is this a philatelic convention? It seems quite non-standard to me, but I thought I'd check with you. Mike Christie (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Another question, on this sentence:
I'm not sure what you mean by "has been"; do you mean intermittently? Or "has always been"? Or should it just be "is", or "is currently"? Mike Christie (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- hope you don't mind all these questions. Here's another, from Stamped-to-Order: in "an official post-paid indicia" you are using "indicia" as a singular. I'm used to seeing it as a plural; as with the use of "stationery", can you tell me if this is a philatelic use or just an error?
Also, in the next section, you have an external link to the "Philatelic Bureau" of An Post. I took a look at List of philatelic bureaus and found that the Irish one links to An Post; is this an error in that list or is this two meanings of "philatelic bureau"? In any case, you might consider making it an inline citation using the web cite format; you might unlink it if there's no WP target for it. Mike Christie (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, last questions, I think, on the last sections.
There are differences between these numbering systems that result in a different sequence of the stamps in each listing, with some stamps included on some lists but not on others[32]—usually varieties that the publishers think do not belong in a general catalogue.
This is not perfect, and I hope I haven't messed up the sense, but I think it's an improvement. One reason I didn't make this change was that I wasn't sure about what parts of the sentence were covered by the citation, so I thought I'd let you move it about as you see fit.
I saw your other edits and will have another look at those in a minute. Mike Christie (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have really enjoyed reading this article, and I hope my edits have improved it somewhat; I also hope I'm not being too irritating with the questions. I have only one remaining concern and it relates to the Postage Due section, which you've substantially reworked.
The revised version is much clearer, but I still am not completely sure I understand it. I think the simplest thing to do is for me to rewrite it here; if this is correct and you like the rewrite, use it if you want; if not, then you can correct my misunderstanding.
Sorry, I didn't preserve your links or refs in the above -- I should have done that.
As I said, I hope this has been useful, and good luck at FAC. I will take another look at the whole article and the other FAC comments and may support, though I don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to be a very reliable commenter on matters of content. Mike Christie (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I've had a go at the lead; I think I skipped this before. I moved some stuff into what appeared to me to be better chronological order. Please revert and/or fix if I messed anything up. I will try to have another pass at the rest over the weekend. Mike Christie (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I just reworded a couple of sentences to this:
This isn't ideal, for a couple of reasons. One is the repetition of "postmark" in the second sentence; it's not awful, since it's not a common word, but I'd like to avoid it. In looking at rephrasing it I discovered that I was slightly unclear about the meaning, so here's a possible rewording that I'd like to check with you before making it.
The points made (I've reordered them) are:
Looking at this, I think there are two separate sets of information being transmitted; one about the nature and identifiability of the cancellations, and one about the covers and whether a partial can still be identified. The latter is secondary since it is irrelevant without the former. So here's a possible restructuring of the second and third paragraphs; let me know what you think of this:
Is this accurate, first of all? I.e. is it the case that all post-1844 cancels contained identifying marks? Second, I wonder if the final sentence in the above paragraph is strictly necessary; it's an aside about philately that doesn't really pertain to your subject. It's not irrelevant but you might consider cutting it.
I think the above could be split into two paragraphs at "Cancels of both types" if the white space looks better that way. That's a long sentence, too; it could be split at "But" by making it ". . . visible. A stamp no longer . . . " but I think a long sentence is OK for flow at that point.
What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Looks pretty good. A possible tweak would be to connect the "certain Irish towns" with the succeeding list, perhaps like this:
This allows the elimination of the second half of that sentence. I think there's technically a slight grammatical flaw here, since the "including" would more naturally refer to the Maltese crosses that are the subject of the preceding clause, but I think it's a legitimate colloquial usage.
However, if I understand your previous post, not every pre-1844 cancel in Ireland used the Maltese Cross, so the first sentence isn't quite right. So should it be something like this?
Have fun gardening! It's too wet here. Mike Christie (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Two questions about this:
Should that be "principal nationalist organization"? And would it be accurate to expand the second sentence to say "Their use as stamps was forbidden", or was there some broader ban, such as a general ban on the display of nationalism?
I'm also curious to know whether "principal" is accurate: the "early days" section in the article on Sinn Fein seems to imply that they were not a major group, and clicking on the Easter Rising link led me to think that perhaps some of the other groups were as prominent as Sinn Fein.
Also, shouldn't it be "Sinn Féin"? I know nothing about Gaelic accents, but I see an accent is used on the Sinn Féin article.
-- Mike Christie (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm using section heads to split up these questions for readability.
I just spent some time thinking about this paragraph:
Here's a candidate rewrite; I am uncertain about a couple of facts so I am putting the rewrite here for review rather than making the change directly.
Notes on the above:
Also, I found this page asserting that the Imperial Union labels are most likely whimsical rather than political; is this a reliable theory that could be mentioned?
As ever, please delete/revert wherever I've messed up. Mike Christie (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Some more detail on a recent edit in case you want to revert: I unlinked some words in the definitives para, and uncapitalized them, but it appears you had them capitalized because they represented the title (in some official sense? or in catalog listings?) of the definitive series. I think that the way you had it was an unhappy compromise -- if they're to be capped it should be evident to the reader that that represents a title. In lowercase, it didn't look useful to have both "heritage" and "treasures" included, since they mean something similar to a reader in this context, so I took out "treasures". I do think the links were not useful. Mike Christie (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain this sentence to me?
I think it means that the values listed do not necessarily correspond to whatever the airmail rates happened to be, so if you wanted an airmail stamp for 11d you had to buy an 8d and a 3d. If so, I'll have a go at rewording it. Mike Christie (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The different issues are all described as First issue without an introductory "The". Is this a standard to describe issues in philately? It would seem more natural to say "The first issue . . . ." Mike Christie (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this: "The spelling ERIE, an old Irish spelling without the accent, for ÉIRE could have because of hasty preparation." is a copyediting blip; not sure what the intended edit was but it's clearly a mistake. Mike Christie (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Does the current stamp include Northern Ireland? -- Chickenfeed9 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In response to this edit (Undid revision 174001469 by Michael Romanov (talk) - what's the title? - not postal history) done by Ww2censor, let me suggest the change of the article title. Currently, it's Postage stamps of Ireland. But if you look at its content, the article is definitely about certain key aspects of the Irish postal history. So, unless there is a separate article on Postal history of Ireland, I propose to rename the given article to Postage stamps and postal history of Ireland. Thanks. -- Michael Romanov ( talk) 01:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added a little see also at the top to a new little article as that seems to be where such links are supposed to go according to guidelines. It seems to me it might be a bit over prominent there. Would in the text or in a section near the end be better? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Postage stamps of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Postage stamps of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Serious verifiability issues with this one (many cn tags) there may be other issues as well. ( t · c) buidhe 23:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Postage stamps of Ireland is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 14, 2007. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Let me be the first to say: very nice!! I just have one suggestion - there are links to common words like "acquire" and "challenge" that aren't really necessary - worse, they don't usually link to the topics you think. If you like, I'll do a pass that fixes up some that kind of style detail, and then I think it's worth nominating as a featured article. Stan 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone give the reasoning why the name Ireland is never put on the Irish postage stamps, I can't find it in the article. One would think that both names Eire and Ireland would appear printed on the postage stamps, if only to promote the name of Ireland, which is the international name, vis a vis tourism, broader recognition and awareness, etc. etc. I remember once meeting a Asian stamp-collector who didn't know that Ireland was Eire.- MelForbes 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
A couple of things, as I find them:
More if I find anything. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Your changes in response to the above look good; that miniature sheet is interesting and answers my question.
One more item: in the airmail paragraph, should that last stamp price be "6p" or "6d"? Mike Christie (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Another question. This is hard to understand:
What does "without knowing the date of use and specific colour" mean? Do you mean that if you know when the label was used, and you know the colour, then you can tell what amount of postage due was being collected, but otherwise you cannot? If so, what does it mean to say that the Irish pingin amount was stated on the label? Surely that would be enough? I'm sure I'm missing something here; if you explain it I'll try to rewrite it. Mike Christie (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I changed "190 degrees" to "180 degrees" in the booklet section; I was pretty sure that was just a typo, but I mention it here just in case. Mike Christie (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I did some modifications to the watermark section, including eliminating some white space. This has made the picture run into the next section, which is a little ugly. You may want to tweak this some more, though this shouldn't cause any opposes at FAC; I don't like it in my own articles though sometimes I find I have to live with it. Anyway, you might just want to revert my changes here, though I do think there were some problems of sequence to be fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You have clearly deliberately treated "stationery" as a plural noun. Is this a philatelic convention? It seems quite non-standard to me, but I thought I'd check with you. Mike Christie (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Another question, on this sentence:
I'm not sure what you mean by "has been"; do you mean intermittently? Or "has always been"? Or should it just be "is", or "is currently"? Mike Christie (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- hope you don't mind all these questions. Here's another, from Stamped-to-Order: in "an official post-paid indicia" you are using "indicia" as a singular. I'm used to seeing it as a plural; as with the use of "stationery", can you tell me if this is a philatelic use or just an error?
Also, in the next section, you have an external link to the "Philatelic Bureau" of An Post. I took a look at List of philatelic bureaus and found that the Irish one links to An Post; is this an error in that list or is this two meanings of "philatelic bureau"? In any case, you might consider making it an inline citation using the web cite format; you might unlink it if there's no WP target for it. Mike Christie (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, last questions, I think, on the last sections.
There are differences between these numbering systems that result in a different sequence of the stamps in each listing, with some stamps included on some lists but not on others[32]—usually varieties that the publishers think do not belong in a general catalogue.
This is not perfect, and I hope I haven't messed up the sense, but I think it's an improvement. One reason I didn't make this change was that I wasn't sure about what parts of the sentence were covered by the citation, so I thought I'd let you move it about as you see fit.
I saw your other edits and will have another look at those in a minute. Mike Christie (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have really enjoyed reading this article, and I hope my edits have improved it somewhat; I also hope I'm not being too irritating with the questions. I have only one remaining concern and it relates to the Postage Due section, which you've substantially reworked.
The revised version is much clearer, but I still am not completely sure I understand it. I think the simplest thing to do is for me to rewrite it here; if this is correct and you like the rewrite, use it if you want; if not, then you can correct my misunderstanding.
Sorry, I didn't preserve your links or refs in the above -- I should have done that.
As I said, I hope this has been useful, and good luck at FAC. I will take another look at the whole article and the other FAC comments and may support, though I don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to be a very reliable commenter on matters of content. Mike Christie (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I've had a go at the lead; I think I skipped this before. I moved some stuff into what appeared to me to be better chronological order. Please revert and/or fix if I messed anything up. I will try to have another pass at the rest over the weekend. Mike Christie (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I just reworded a couple of sentences to this:
This isn't ideal, for a couple of reasons. One is the repetition of "postmark" in the second sentence; it's not awful, since it's not a common word, but I'd like to avoid it. In looking at rephrasing it I discovered that I was slightly unclear about the meaning, so here's a possible rewording that I'd like to check with you before making it.
The points made (I've reordered them) are:
Looking at this, I think there are two separate sets of information being transmitted; one about the nature and identifiability of the cancellations, and one about the covers and whether a partial can still be identified. The latter is secondary since it is irrelevant without the former. So here's a possible restructuring of the second and third paragraphs; let me know what you think of this:
Is this accurate, first of all? I.e. is it the case that all post-1844 cancels contained identifying marks? Second, I wonder if the final sentence in the above paragraph is strictly necessary; it's an aside about philately that doesn't really pertain to your subject. It's not irrelevant but you might consider cutting it.
I think the above could be split into two paragraphs at "Cancels of both types" if the white space looks better that way. That's a long sentence, too; it could be split at "But" by making it ". . . visible. A stamp no longer . . . " but I think a long sentence is OK for flow at that point.
What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Looks pretty good. A possible tweak would be to connect the "certain Irish towns" with the succeeding list, perhaps like this:
This allows the elimination of the second half of that sentence. I think there's technically a slight grammatical flaw here, since the "including" would more naturally refer to the Maltese crosses that are the subject of the preceding clause, but I think it's a legitimate colloquial usage.
However, if I understand your previous post, not every pre-1844 cancel in Ireland used the Maltese Cross, so the first sentence isn't quite right. So should it be something like this?
Have fun gardening! It's too wet here. Mike Christie (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Two questions about this:
Should that be "principal nationalist organization"? And would it be accurate to expand the second sentence to say "Their use as stamps was forbidden", or was there some broader ban, such as a general ban on the display of nationalism?
I'm also curious to know whether "principal" is accurate: the "early days" section in the article on Sinn Fein seems to imply that they were not a major group, and clicking on the Easter Rising link led me to think that perhaps some of the other groups were as prominent as Sinn Fein.
Also, shouldn't it be "Sinn Féin"? I know nothing about Gaelic accents, but I see an accent is used on the Sinn Féin article.
-- Mike Christie (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm using section heads to split up these questions for readability.
I just spent some time thinking about this paragraph:
Here's a candidate rewrite; I am uncertain about a couple of facts so I am putting the rewrite here for review rather than making the change directly.
Notes on the above:
Also, I found this page asserting that the Imperial Union labels are most likely whimsical rather than political; is this a reliable theory that could be mentioned?
As ever, please delete/revert wherever I've messed up. Mike Christie (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Some more detail on a recent edit in case you want to revert: I unlinked some words in the definitives para, and uncapitalized them, but it appears you had them capitalized because they represented the title (in some official sense? or in catalog listings?) of the definitive series. I think that the way you had it was an unhappy compromise -- if they're to be capped it should be evident to the reader that that represents a title. In lowercase, it didn't look useful to have both "heritage" and "treasures" included, since they mean something similar to a reader in this context, so I took out "treasures". I do think the links were not useful. Mike Christie (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain this sentence to me?
I think it means that the values listed do not necessarily correspond to whatever the airmail rates happened to be, so if you wanted an airmail stamp for 11d you had to buy an 8d and a 3d. If so, I'll have a go at rewording it. Mike Christie (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The different issues are all described as First issue without an introductory "The". Is this a standard to describe issues in philately? It would seem more natural to say "The first issue . . . ." Mike Christie (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this: "The spelling ERIE, an old Irish spelling without the accent, for ÉIRE could have because of hasty preparation." is a copyediting blip; not sure what the intended edit was but it's clearly a mistake. Mike Christie (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Does the current stamp include Northern Ireland? -- Chickenfeed9 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In response to this edit (Undid revision 174001469 by Michael Romanov (talk) - what's the title? - not postal history) done by Ww2censor, let me suggest the change of the article title. Currently, it's Postage stamps of Ireland. But if you look at its content, the article is definitely about certain key aspects of the Irish postal history. So, unless there is a separate article on Postal history of Ireland, I propose to rename the given article to Postage stamps and postal history of Ireland. Thanks. -- Michael Romanov ( talk) 01:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added a little see also at the top to a new little article as that seems to be where such links are supposed to go according to guidelines. It seems to me it might be a bit over prominent there. Would in the text or in a section near the end be better? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Postage stamps of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Postage stamps of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Serious verifiability issues with this one (many cn tags) there may be other issues as well. ( t · c) buidhe 23:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)