Talk:Admirals (philately)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Admirals (philately) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Admiral of the Fleet?

Although the lead refers to George V in "his Admiral of the Fleet uniform", the article Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy) does not list him as having held the title Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy). Ecphora (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that consideration of George V as an "Admiral of the Fleet" might be confusing and misleading. --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George V, however, does state he was Admiral of the Fleet. I posted a question on the Talk:Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy) page to see if someone can clear this up. Ecphora (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the King George V page it makes mention of King George V's rank(s) of Admiral:

* RAdm, 1 January 1901: Rear-Admiral, Royal Navy

* VAdm, 26 June 1903: Vice-Admiral, Royal Navy

* Adm, 1907: Admiral, Royal Navy

* 1910: Admiral of the Fleet, Royal Navy

However no citations were offered for these specific entries, so I tagged the entry. -- GWillHickers (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George V

I don't understand what this biographical section is for in the article, if there is a main detailed article George V of the United Kingdom already linked to this one. I suggest deleting this section. It does not make sense here, in the article about a definitive stamp series. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Admirals (stamps) are about King George V a short bio section is appropriate. People who collect King George on stamps are interested in more than a physical paper stamp, they are interested in the stamp subject and its history also. Hence, a little history on KGV. As with all encyclopedias, additional info is usually offered so the article doesn't exist in a vacuum. GWillHickers (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish, readers are quite capable of clicking on the George V of the United Kingdom link. There is no need for a bio in this stamp article. It is not in a vacuum, that what links are for. BTW he was never know as "King George V of Great Britain" per your prose. ww2censor (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King George V of Great Britain is not my prose. It has been there since at least August 2009 long before I made any additions to the page. In any event my thinking was not to render the article so it reads like a dictionary, and as is evident on Wikipedia, almost everywhere, cursory mention of (directly) related topics is quite normal and is usually welcomed. Don't quite see the harm in that. For example, on the George Washington page, considerable mention to the American revolution is made, even though the page's subject is Washington. The same can be found on the Postage stamps of Ireland page where the same amount of attention is given to catalogs and numbering systems, a topic which is not directly related to Irish stamps. If someone wants to read a full account of these other topics, and break away from the page, there is a link also. GWillHickers (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, please don't cross the subjects. Washington is a historical personality of the highest magnitude and a pivotal figure in the American revolution. So it's normal to cover American history-related events - of course, to an appropriate extent - in the article about Washington to show what he did in the course of these events for his country. (snip)

Hello Michael. (I broke up your entry into different sections.)

Yes, and KGV is also another such historical entity, and since the Admirals are indeed about this individual, some basic mention of this person also seems to be in order...to an appropriate extent, of course, which is the case here. If I purchased a book on the Admirals and it didn't even make a cursory reference to KGV and instructed me to go elsewhere to find this information I would be truly disappointed. As a reader, it's nice to be able to read an article without having to jump to another page to appreciate or understand what the current page is talking about. GWillHickers (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[M.R.] As to the postage stamps of Ireland, you cannot even describe them without referring to catalogs, and Ireland stamp numbering system is directly connected to the topic.

Likewise, the Admiral stamps are about KGV and one can not know who he is without some basic mention of this individual. And btw...I approve of including some info on catalogs on the Postage stamps of Ireland page. You seem to be suggesting I do not to make your point, which doesn't seem to be consistent with Wikipedia as a whole, as again, almost all the pages make basic reference to related topics. It would seem that this is a good thing. GWillHickers (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[M.R.} You suggest mixing two quite different areas - biographic and philatelic subjects - to a larger extent than it's appropriate in Wikipedia articles.

What I 'mixed' was basic KGV bio' info on a KGV topographical page. Basic biographical mention was made to KGV as the Admirals are topographical and so basic biographical reference was made to that topic, as the stamps revolve around that topic. It would seem that those who wish to read up on this individual to a fuller extent can break way from the page and go to the KGV page. GWillHickers (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[M.R.]I asked you to read the style and WP:NOT guidelines for Wikipedia articles, from which you could easily see that the Wikipedia style is essentially different from other encyclopedias you may be more used to. Summarizing my post, it's quite enough to mention in the lead of this article that the subject is a series of definitive stamps issued by three countries of the British Commonwealth which show King George V of the United Kingdom, with the link to the main and heavily elaborated article on him. The bio section should be deleted in this article. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As can be evidenced on almost all the WP pages, the area of subject overlap is considerable, to an extent, which it seems is good, and it was my understanding that I came no where near going past that extent with the few basic sentences regarding KGV. If it makes any difference, I prefaced the George V section with. King George V is a very popular topic on stamps for a number of reasons: However, if the common consensus is that no bio' information should be on that page at all, then I will of course abide by common consensus. GWillHickers (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GWillHickers please don't cut up someone else's comments and intersperse your responses. That makes it very difficult to figure out who said what. You should simply include your entire response after the prior one. Ecphora (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be WP:BOLD and delete the biographic info that has no place, other than a cursory mention as GWillHickers himself says, in this article. If readers are so stupid that they cannot link to the George V's own bio for more information, that is their problem. This article is about the stamps. ww2censor (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYVIO in George V

A considerable part of this section is almost verbatim reproduction of the text found on the New Zealand Post and The Royal Household websites. This is inappropriate for Wikipedia articles and must be removed. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read attentively the guideline: WP:PLAGIARISM. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in this respect, may I ask you whether this pattern of Wikipedia article composition is attributable to your other articles and edits? --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The King George V section is only a few sentences long, and there may be a phrase that matches an other phrase found in the sources somewhere, though I don't see any. If you see a specific example of actual copyright'vio please bring it to my attention. btw.. I didn't create the George V section. I originally included this basic info in the course of the article. GWillHickers (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You added the bio info in the lead, even in front of the definition, that breaks the Wikipedia style we are discussing above and somewhere else with you. So, to save the situation, Ecphora moved your bio edits down in a separate section. But actually this info is unnecessary as we try to explain you that above. --Michael Romanov (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below are comparisons between the section text and two sources. --Michael Romanov (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I originally added this basic info in with the other text. I did not deny I had entered it as you seem to be suggesting with your edit history display. I had thought that some basic cursory bio info was in order given the topical nature of the stamps, so I checked a few sources and indeed some of the wording is the same. If my wording amounts to a copyright violation here at WP them I apologize for my quick entry and will reword the passage completely, that is, if it hasn't been deleted yet. GWillHickers (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the passage and apologize for the near copyright violation and any trouble I may have caused. GWillHickers (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article	source
George V was born on June 3, 1865 and succeeded his father, Edward VII, to the British throne in 1910. He pursued a naval career until the death, in 1892, of his older brother made him second in line to the throne of his grandmother, Queen Victoria. George V won the hearts of Britians by his visits to the troops during World War I and later by his Christmas radio broadcasts. George V made a radio broadcast every Christmas Day from that point on until his death in 1936. His final Christmas Broadcast was made in 1935, the King's voice sounding weaker, came less than a month before his death. During the war he changed the name of the Royal Family to Windsor. He died on 20 January 1936, and was succeeded by his oldest son, Edward VIII.	New Zealand Post: George V succeeded his father, Edward VII, to the British throne in 1910. Born on June 3, 1865, he pursued a naval career until the death, in 1892, of his older brother made him second in line to the throne of his grandmother, Queen Victoria. <...> George V won popular affection by his visits to the troops during World War I and later by his Christmas radio broadcasts. During the war he changed the name of the Royal Family to Windsor. He died on 20 January 1936, and was succeeded by his oldest son, Edward VIII.
George V was born on June 3, 1865 and succeeded his father, Edward VII, to the British throne in 1910. He pursued a naval career until the death, in 1892, of his older brother made him second in line to the throne of his grandmother, Queen Victoria. George V won the hearts of Britians by his visits to the troops during World War I and later by his Christmas radio broadcasts. George V made a radio broadcast every Christmas Day from that point on until his death in 1936. His final Christmas Broadcast was made in 1935, the King's voice sounding weaker, came less than a month before his death. During the war he changed the name of the Royal Family to Windsor. He died on 20 January 1936, and was succeeded by his oldest son, Edward VIII.	The Royal Household: Equally impressed, George V made a Broadcast every Christmas Day subsequently until his death in 1936. George V's last Christmas Broadcast in 1935 came less than a month before his death and the King's voice sounded weaker.

Need an advice

Colleagues, at this point I need an advice from you. Should we just delete the section in question or proceed with the WP:CP Instructions? --Michael Romanov (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand 1926 Issues

Unfortunately, I have to scrutinize the New Zealand section because:

There are some WP:COPYVIO problems in this section, too.
I don't think it's a good idea to show the Field Marshall stamp as a representation of the New Zealand Admirals. The article is about the latter, judging from its title.
The last statement cannot be found in the reference provided, so I am going to mark it with {{cn}} template. --Michael Romanov (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic uploads

My impression is that the file uploads for the article are problematic. All three images are again miscategorized, and the overall description is sloppy. The source is incorrect. The license for the New Zealand stamp is inappropriate. I ask Gwillhickers to read the COM:HELP guidelines and fix the problems. --Michael Romanov (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added what I hope are the correct categories for the Canada stamp (Category:Canadian stamps) and the New Zealand stamp (Category:Stamps of New Zealand), however I couldn't find an example for the category for the Rhodesia stamp (assuming the present categories (Monarchs of the United Kingdom | Philately | Stamps by country) are incorrect. Also, all three stamps are in the public domain and so I added the tags 'PD-UKGov' for the New Zealand and Rhodesia stamps and 'PD-Canada-stamp', for the one Canadian stamp. Am not sure why you claim the NZ license is inappropriate. As for descriptions, I indicated (for example) on the Canadian stamp: 'Canada postage stamp, King George V, 1925 issue, 50c. Am not sure why you feel this is sloppy, as you were not very clear about that either. I browsed through postal history into the respective countries and there doesn't always appear to be consistency in their uploads. For example on the image 'Stamp Newfoundland 1928 20c Colonial Building.jpg' the only category I saw there was 'Category:1928'. On another Canadian stamp 'Stamp Canada 1868 2c.jpg' the only category I saw was 'Canadian stamps'. On yet another Canadian stamp 'Stamp Canada 1954 5c QE2.jpg' I found no category listed, however most of the Canadian stamps do use 'Canadian stamps' for the category. If there is anything you can offer in the way of further help it would be most appreciated. GWillHickers (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you looked for the category for the Rhodesia stamp, but it's simply commons:Category:Stamps of Rhodesia. --Michael Romanov (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged these and some other uploads of yours with templates explaining specific problems. I already talked to you on several occasions with regard to good practice of uploading stamp images and even showed you an example of the correct file description, licensing and categorization (which you wilfully deleted without any reason and against Wikipedia rules). Moreover, it's your responsibility to read, learn, accept and properly use the guidelines described on the pages commons:COM:HELP, commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain, and commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. I cannot endlessly control and correct your numerous uploads, and I guess other editors may feel the same way. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked into these areas and even went as far as to look at examples of similar uploads for comparisons, but alas still seem to be in error here. ie.Some Canadian stamps have Canadian stamp for the category, other have Stamps of Canada. Also, all three images uploaded to the KGV page are PD and have been tagged as such, so I must admit I am somewhat confused now. I understand it is my responsibility to get these things straight, but all I seem to be doing in this instance is getting a few people angry. As for the "willfully deleted" text, all that was being done then was to get the technical jargon out of the message area in an attempt to keep the page from getting cluttered, knowing that all deletions are archived anyways. If this is yet another source of grief for you please except my apologies, once again. Now I am in the process of trying to fix the files in question. GWillHickers (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any Canadian stamp that would have commons:Category:Canadian stamp or commons:Category:Canadian stamps. They would be redundant and deleted anyway. But I do see that in addition to the correct commons:Category:Stamps of Canada, you tagged the commons:File:Admiral Canada2-50c.jpg with commons:Category:Canadian stamps ) that is nonsense. For the policy regulating the editing of talk pages, please read WP:ETIQ#How to avoid abuse of talk pages. --Michael Romanov (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am not looking in the right place, but when I checked the Postage stamps and postal history of Canada page and clicked on the images they have Canadian stamps, listed in the file history - comments table. There is no category designation at the bottom of the page.

Stamp Canada 1868 2c.jpg

Stamp Canada 1897 2c.jpg<br?>

Stamp Canada 1899 2c.jpg

If Stamps of Canada is the correct category then of course I will use it in the future. -- GWillHickers (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in Wikipedia and on Commons can be different. For Canada stamps, the correct Commons category format is Stamps of Canada, year. --Michael Romanov (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is something else that is news to me. What else tends to be confusing is that there seems to be different categories for similar and the same things: "Philately", "Postal history", "stamps", "stamp collecting". When does one just use the category "stamps" alone? Is the category "stamps" or "stamps by country" ever used in conjunction with "philately", or "postal history"? If stamps are to be categorized by a particular year date then why is there the generic "stamps by year" category -- and so forth It makes one wonder if 'all' of these categories are necessary, but that's a different issue. In any event Michael, I appreciate your input even though it tends to be frank sometimes. I will try my best to sort this stuff out. At least I will get some more education out of the deal. GWillHickers (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is prescribed in Wikipedia and on Commons, and almost every editor's step is regulated. What you are talking about is explained in commons:Commons:Categories. --Michael Romanov (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you for providing the list of stamps with questionable criteria. It will be a tremendous help in sorting things out. GWillHickers (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just a beginning. :) --Michael Romanov (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image size

To: ww2censor. Saw your note in edit history about "unforce image sizes", but did not see anything to that effect in MOS/Images. MOS says "An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8") wide.." which means that you can set the image size within practical limits of course. Where are you getting the "unforce image size" idea from? GWillHickers (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the full section. It goes on to tell you which images may be candidates for adjusting the size above the normal thumb settings. You may also want to refer to WP:IMGSIZE which is even more specific stating: "in general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". ww2censor (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Why adjust an image unless there is a good reason to do so? Isn't rendering the size of the stamp image, which is presently very small, to be uniform with the other stamp images on the page a good reason to do so? GWillHickers (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodesia 1913-24 Issues

I was unable to locate any info for these stamps following the provided link. Please add a reliable source(s) for this section. --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada 1911-31 stamp issues

The section intro contains a minor WP:COPYVIO problem (see the statement that begins with "The ensuing period...". And I don't understand why there are years 1931 and 1929 in the heading and subheading of this section if the last issue was made in 1928. --Michael Romanov (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First series, 1911-1931

A statement is not verified in the sources indicated in this section. --Michael Romanov (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War Tax stamp issues

According to WP:VERIFY, citations are needed for a good fraction of the section. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two more statements still require citations. --Michael Romanov (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1915 Overprints

I was unable to verify the info in this section using the provided links. This should comply with WP:VERIFY. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the intro web page you refer to does not contain any info for 1915 Overprints. --Michael Romanov (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The '2 cents' overprints

In this section, the links provided do not show the entire info. All statements should be appropriately supported by reliable sources. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Admirals (philately). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Admirals (philately). 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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]