Talk:Postage stamps of Ireland

message: 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)
replies: text: I'll be happy for you to do that. What? You think it good enough to be nominated. Not bad for about 3 months work I suppose. I still have some additional work to do, small but there are some improvements in content like the Exhibition souvenir details and maybe a couple of extra images. ww2censor 18:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  older entries 

message: 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)
replies: text: There are some reference to this in Names of the Irish state referring to the use of Éire (not Eire as you wrote - perhaps you don't know how to make the accents) before 1949 on both stamps and coins and this tradition has continued. The name is also used on Irish, and Euro-Irish, passports, on the presidential seal, and on all Irish (and since 2002 Euro-Irish) coins and other official state documents issued since 1937. Before then, Saorstát Éireann, the Irish translation of Irish Free State, featured amongst other uses. To my knowledge very few countries (South Africa is the only one comes to mind right now) have the county name in two languages. I don't have any references to hand for you, so hope the idea of continuity of use will suffice. ww2censor 02:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eire v Ireland

message: 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.
::Surcharges imposed by the Irish post office on mail bearing insufficient pre-paid postage had the postage due collected by the use of these labels. Since 1925 there have been six series printed, with the design remaining the same until 1980, though the colour and watermarks changed.  The Irish word pingin, for penny, is used in both £.s.d and decimal currency, but because it has the same meaning in each, the value on the label does not indicate whether the label was issued before or after decimalization.  Hence identifying the issue of a label requires further information: if a collectors knows the date of use, the existence of a watermark and if so which type, and the specific colour, identification will be easier.  For example, the 3d value was blue between 1940 and 1969, and stone colour from 1971 until 1980; it changed from a watermarked to a non-watermark paper in 1978.  Additionally the 1, 5 and 8 pence values are also seen in two different colours depending on the issue, while the 1/2d, 1d, 2d and 6d are seen with both varieties of watermark. Except for the sixth issue, which has the word Éire in the design, there is no explicit country identity on any of the others.  The first four series use only Irish words.
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)
replies: text: You have been exceedingly helpful and useful. Thanks you so much. The clarity of other people questioning meanings is really great as it clarifies my mind too, though I must admit much of my editing is done late at night when this brain of mine is a bit weary, but I tend to be a late bird anyway. I think the content knowledge will have to be taken on face value as there are few experienced and active philatelic editors around except Stan and I who seem to have years of experience as well as a decent philatelic library for research. It is really the structure, clarity and whether it is decently written prose, which I hope it is now, that will make or break its WP:FAC fate. After all this I am sure our paths will cross again as I am rather WikiAddicted. BTW, I was looking at some of your Anglo-Saxon FAs and found them very interesting indeed—all stuff I did not know anything about. That is one of the things I love about this place. Cheers. ww2censor 03:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postage due 

message: I'm using section heads to split up these questions for readability.
I just spent some time thinking about this paragraph:
:In 1912 the Imperial Union labels showing a larger harp and female figure are believed to have been printed in Manchester as a counter to the previous Sinn Féin labels. Labels appeared after the Home Rule Bill for Ireland was passed in parliament, by an extreme body opposed to the setting up of an independent Irish Republic.  Three men, Allen, Larkin and O'Brien, were popularly known as The Manchester Martyrs: their portraits, against an Irish tricolour background, were prepared by Irish Republicans and are shown on these labels issued in 1916. Feldman states that forgeries are common. Following the Easter Rising of 1916, American sympathisers printed eight ERIE PUIST labels showing the seven portraits of the prominent leaders and a harp and shamrock label. The spelling ERIE for ÉIRE could be due to the hasty preparation though this is a correct, old Irish, spelling.
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.
:In 1912, labels inscribed "Imperial Union" appeared, with a design of a larger harp and female figure.  These labels, expressing unionist sentiments, are believed to have been printed in Manchester as a counter to the Sinn Féin labels.  After the Home Rule Bill for Ireland was passed in parliament, an extreme Irish Republican body issued labels in 1916 with the portraits of three nationalist heroes known as The Manchester Martyrs against an Irish tricolour background.  Forgeries of these labels are common. Following the Easter Rising of 1916, American sympathisers printed eight ERIE PUIST labels showing the seven portraits of the prominent leaders and a harp and shamrock label. The spelling ERIE for ÉIRE could be due to hasty preparation though this is a correct, old Irish, spelling.
Notes on the above:
*Is it accurate to call the label-issuers "extreme"?  Is that controversial?
*I cut the Martyrs' names; it was hard to fit them into the flow, and I finally decided they weren't necessary.  If they are a useful or well-known aspect of the label description then they should probably be added back.
*I cut the attribution to Feldman; I think the reference suffices.
*I cut "the" from "the hasty preparation"; I assume this is the intended meaning, although if you know that the preparation was indeed hasty it should be changed back.
*I cut the phrase "opposed to the setting up of an independent Irish Republic" and replaced it with a link to unionism as a way of eliminating what is essentially background explanation from the flow of the text.
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)
replies: text: I like it except for "extreme" which is likely POV. Regarding the whimsical  notion, you will see that Wolf only uses Feldman as a source and his sentence is confusing as it says "in fact, it seems probable". Is it fact or probability? A dispute, maybe, but not both. Let me go back and read Feldman on this. If I find anything different I will post here. ww2censor 17:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this edit too, cutting "extreme"; if you decide the "whimsical" theory is worth adding it can be put in later. Mike Christie (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forerunners 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definitives 

message: Can you explain this sentence to me?
:Seven Irish airmail stamps were issued between 1948 and 1965 in the 1d, 3d, 6d, 8d, 1/-, 1/3 and 1/5 values. Some individual values did not pay a specific airmail rate but they were the only airmail stamps ever issued.
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)
replies: text: What it means is that some there were no airmail rates for some of the stamps issued, i.e., 1d and 3d, all the others paid specific airmail rates. Does that clarify it? ww2censor 23:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I revised the no specific airmail rates for some stamps sentence. Thanks for everything. ww2censor 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airmail 

message: 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)
replies: text: Originally I had several subsectiosn for each issue but based on the comments of Pagrashtak who thought there were to many sections, I reduced the bold issue heading into the text but obviously without intergrating it properly into the sentences. I will do something with it now. ww2censor 14:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I think I'm done; I can't find anything else to look at.  The airmail sentence might still be tweaked; I'll think about that some more.  Other than that, good luck with FA.  If it doesn't get through this time I'm sure it will next time.  Mike Christie (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postage due issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is it less understandable than previously? Maybe need to add "and letters transposed". Would that be better? User:SandyGeorgia has weighed in a given some more suggestions that I have taken on board. ww2censor 02:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing "been" after the "have": that would make sense.  I do think this is a clumsier version of the sentence though; "The spelling ERIE for ÉIRE could be due to hasty preparation though this is a correct, old Irish, spelling" seemed fine to me.  I think you were trying to eliminate a "due to"?  I'd say this one is OK.  Anyway, even if you leave it as is, the "been" is definitely needed. Mike Christie (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I will add the "been" and yes, I was trying to get rid of some "due to"s expecially for Tony. Thanks ww2censor 02:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting blip 

message: Does the current stamp include Northern Ireland? --Chickenfeed9 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's part of a different country (UK). Countries never use each other's stamps, for a variety of reasons. (Might be worthwhile for article to clarify that Northern Ireland not part of this story.) Stan 18:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you need more clarification but under "Stamp issuing authorities" it states "Between 1922 and 1983 Oifig an Phoist, the Irish Post Office, a section of the Department of Posts & Telegraphs (P&T), issued all postage stamps in the 26 counties of Ireland." Maybe you need it spelled out that the other 6 counties of NI were excluded. ww2censor 04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: 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)
replies: text: When I started this page I specifically worked on a stamps only article. Sure there are a few postal history statements that are necessary to put the stamps into context. I am working on a postal history only article but it is by no means ready as other things have intervened. You will see that there is a red links in the see also section. that is for the future article on postal history. That is the reason for the revert. ww2censor (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for the title change 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929121534/http://www.stampprinters.info/SPI_Country_I.htm to http://www.stampprinters.info/SPI_Country_I.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223025521/http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/set1T/set1T.html to http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/set1T/set1T.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223025445/http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/set9T/set9T.html to http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/set9T/set9T.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103165414/http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/overprints/intro.html to http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/overprints/intro.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630205459/http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/index.html to http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817052227/http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/forerunners/contents.html to http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/forerunners/contents.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817002953/http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/overprints/contents.html to http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/stamps/irish/overprints/contents.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with buidhe's assessment above, and I will note that many of the sources listed are not used as inline citations, causing concern that the article is not comprehensive. I am going to relist this at WP:FARGIVEN. Is anyone interested in addressing the concerns? If not, it can be nominated at WP:FAR. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There are just 6 citation needed tags. That's not MANY, actually really quite few for such a detailed article that has citations on virtually everything else. , what are your other issues that you didn't mention? I'll have a look at them in the next week or so as I am quite busy with other matters. Sources listed that are not used as for inline citations are intended for comprehensive further reading by interested visitors. ww2censor (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks for taking a look at this. Regarding the comprehensive comments, 1b of the featured article criteria states that a featured article is comprehensive, and neglects no major facts. While I am not a subject matter expert on this topic, I am concerned when a featured article contained multiple sources that are recommended reading, but not included as inline citations. Instead, I would expect that the information from those sources is included in the article and cited to those sources. Also, above I said that many of the sources are not used as citations, but upon closer inspection it seems like some that are listed in sources are used, but the mix of reference styles causes error messages on my sfn/harv ref script. Can the citation style used in the article be standardised, so that either sfn template are used or removed? This will also help us determine which sources have not been incorporated into the article yet. Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry but you have lost me. I don't know exactly what you mean about the mix of reference style. Most of this was done many years ago but with newer additions that may use a different style I find better to use now. You may be better off to explain in detail, with examples, on my talk page. ww2censor (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry for the late response, real life has been busy. If you look at the wikicode, ref 13 uses a harvnb template so that the citation is shorter. The idea is that the short citation is shown in references (as "Freeman & Stubbs 1922, p. 19") then the full citation is in the sources (as "Freeman, F. F.; Stubbs, T. T. (April 1922). Provisional Issue: Irish Free State Stamps (1st ed.). Dublin, Ireland: Mint Stamp Company.") However, ref 46 does not do this: the page numbers for that reference are in the body of the article, inserted with an rp template, while the full citation is in the references section, and then duplicated (needlessly, in my opinion) in the sources section. Ref 5 also does something completely different, where the page numbers are listed in the reference section, and the full citation is not in the sources section. These are three different citation styles: in my opinion, the article needs to pick one style and stick with it throughout. Z1720 (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for explaining but I think that will be a rather big job to reformat all citations into the same style. I think this has happened because over time I started to use different and maybe better styles as I learned what I feel are a better reference format. Right now I have other fish to fry and don't think I devote the time to dealing with the reference styles but will try to at least deal with the missing citations that are tagged so the article is not demoted from FA. Perhaps over time I can reformat the citations into one style that no one has ever mentioned since it became an FA in 2007. ww2censor (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not forgotten about you mentioning the citation issues. I've had a look at it but cannot see an easy way to modify the existing inline citations to remove the harv errors in the sources section. Perhaps using an sfr template would be better but I've not used them and I can't see a way to reformat using that. I specifically looked at the first inline citation of the "Feldman, David (1968). Handbook of Irish Philately" source with its initial entry inline which is currently 7a. If you could reformat just that one I could then see how to resolve the issue I'd be really grateful. Without such help I don't think I can resolve this. Thanks in advance. ww2censor (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For Feldman, I would say that, since it has a full citation in ref 7, it does not need to be listed in the Sources, and should be removed. In the past I would have been a lot more strict and insisted that everything was formatted the same, but FAC seemed to have taken a different view in recent months, so as long as the citation is complete, and not redundant (like Feldman is) than I'm OK with it. Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I see what you mean about the Feldman source but that seems like an exception. When looking at the bottom 4 source publications of Meredith, Munk, Reynolds and Summers, they are not used as full citations but have the harv errors. How do I deal with them? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  These sources should be explored and either used as inline citations (if able to) or removed (if they can't add information to the article.) Z1720 (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to update you, I've been trying to figure out how to deal how to deal with the harv errors and think I've cracked it. Three items have been moved into a "further reading" section. I have just one source left, that is used quite a few times, and still needs doing. Besides that there is just one citation tag I have not figured out how to deal with. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020|FA sweeps]]