Talk:Postal history

Philately Top‑importance

	Philately portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhilatelyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilatelyTemplate:WikiProject PhilatelyPhilately articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Adding Wiki' links

Two Wiki' links were added to the Postal History page here (Pony Express and Postage stamps and postal history of the United States), pages which are directly involved with Postal history, but were removed for this reason: -- Ww2censor: "why only one country specific link - all or none - the project is already linked on the talk page not here - keep the topics significant to the article" -- The link was not added with the idea that this is 'the only one', but was added as a contribution to the page with the hopes that other such links would be added by those who know of other such links. Are not those pages specific to Postal History?

It was my understanding that pages are supposed to be built a little at a time by multiple users. If we are to apply the 'all or none' rule to all pages it seems this would prohibit users from making related contributions of all sorts and it seems that Wikipedia would implode if links were roundly removed in such a fashion. Can no one add material about American postal history to this page until they are ready to include postal history material from all other countries? GWillHickers (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. The remedy for coverage that is too nation-centric has to be supplementation for other nations, not rampant deletion. Otherwise we "throw the baby out with the bathwater". LADave (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The defining of the terms Postal History and Covers by philatelists

I question the inclusion of "the study of postage stamps" in the definition in the first sentence. Normally, the study of postage stamps is considered "traditional philately", which excludes postal history.

The term "covers" should be defined, such as "pre-stamp folded letters, stamp franked letter envelopes, and franked post cards, that passed through the mails", and could be expanded to include postal receipts. Postal system rate and route publications and maps are also considered collectible postal history artifacts.

Similarly, in the "Subject based studies" section, Postal Stationery is not considered a study area of Postal History, but if used through the mails, postal stationery covers are just additional varieties of franked cover. A postal history exhibit of just postal stationery covers (not unused postal stationery) would be possible, but arbitrarily limited in scope.

Part of the usual description of postal history is "the study of rates, routes, and markings"; some add also "means" meaning means of transport. The study of rates is intimately connected with the postal services provided. Drbillellis 02:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbillellis (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Postal history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

information accuracy

" For instance, a stamp apparently used before any other stamp of its type could be proved a forgery if it was postmarked at a location known not to have received any stamps until a later date."

In fact, authentic uses of stamps used from locations that did not receive supplies are common. These could have been brought to the post office by private individuals, or a post office employee could have brought them in from another post office. For many examples, see Alexander's 1847 cover census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B163:B77E:7006:EF50:9E8F:7239 (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]