List of people on the postage stamps of the Canadian provinces
New to AfD? Read these primers! | |
- List of people on the postage stamps of the Canadian provinces ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
Like all of the other "lists of people on the postage stamps of X" articles, this one is woefully imcomplete. Are we supposed to believe that British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island only ever had one person on a postage stamp ever? There are no sources in sight, and the article has barely been even touched or viewed since 2010. Given the sheer number of postage stamps list at AFD or prod as of this writing, it's clear that this kind of list is not going to ever be reputably sourced. Prod contested because don't think this would nessecarily be an uncontroversial deletion. If this content could be sourced, it might be useful merged somewhere?
, but I don't see anything worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Canada. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – I'm the person who removed the proposed deletion template. It seems like the AfD nominator has more experience in regards to postage stamp lists so I think that's something that's important to keep in mind. I didn't know that this was apparently a common issue. I saw the prod at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Article alerts. I literally know next to nothing about stamps. To me, deleting an article because it was
Stubby, incomplete, unsourced, untouched since 2010
didn't seem uncontroversial. Sometimes articles get ignored, so it didn't really surprise me that something like that could happen. This list is specifically about postage stamps of Canadian provinces before Canadian Confederation because stamps were issued by individual British North America provinces before that happened. That sounded like it could be a historically significant difference. I agree that the list is woefully incomplete, especially compared to List of people on the postage stamps of Canada. Even that list looks like it could be substantially improved. Clovermoss (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC); edited 08:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Update (as of Friday afternoon in my timezone): I made some inquiries. My local library doesn't have anything, but they pointed me towards the direction of other resources that could be useful. There's a museum that I could visit that has a book about the history of postage stamps in Canada, so that seems promising. I've made a few phone calls but no one's got back to me yet. I wouldn't be surprised if I don't hear anything until after the weekend because a lot of people have those off. Clovermoss (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm leaning towards Keep or merge, based off the sources that Stan Shebs has access to. A page move might be nessecary to avoid confusion about what exactly the list covers. I also will have access to a source about the postal history of Canada on Wednesday. Depending on what I am able to find, that might be enough to cement my opinion. I think that this would likely meet the purpose of lists as defined at WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTCRIT, although I'm willing to convinced otherwise with a policy-based argument. I think this way because it's informational and provides navigation to someone who is interested in the topic of people on stamps. Isn't that what you'd expect from a list like that? I will say that even if this sort of thing is obvious to someone whose passionate about stamps, the average person likely doesn't see it as obvious. That's why citations are important if it's not something like the sky is blue. Clovermoss (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Very Strong Delete This is exactly why people who know nothing about a subject should let people who know a little more handle it. After 12 years an article having no sources is an insult to Wikipedia. It is an insult to Wikipedia that it is so hard to keep it from being flooded with various crufts, in this case philatelycruft. Considering the history of postage stamps, how new there were before British Columbia became part of the confederation, and related factors, I would not be surprised if only one person was ever pictured on them. I think at that stage postage stamp variation was not much more than coin variation. Ths idea that we can picture a huge variety of things on postage stamps seems, much in excess of what is pictured on coins, seems to be largely a 20th-century innovation. Deleting articles that have had no sources for over 10 years should only be controversial if people are able to produce sources about the subject. This is philatelycruft and we need to remove it from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: That's the reason I commented instead of !voted. It was also 4 am at the time. I woke up in the middle of the night and I thought I should explain my thought process a bit more. I have things to do today, but I'll try to see if there's sources. My library might have something. I'm not going to vote !keep and make a "sources must exist" argument if I can't find any, y'know? If this list is deleted, List of people on the postage stamps of Canada should be updated to reflect that there isn't another list article for stamps before Confederation. If sources can be found but it isn't useful as a seperate list, maybe a "Before Confederation" section would be useful? Clovermoss (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I think every one of these lists of the trivial fact of who was pictured on postage stamps need to be deleted. Their very existance is a net negative for Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, most of the provinces only issued their own stamps for only a brief period before confederation, with the exception of Newfoundland. Let's please keep the criticisms fact-based and stop with all the pejoratives. (Is this level of nastiness the new norm for WP? I admit I've been a little taken aback by it.) Stan (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- When articles have persisted for over a deacade with no sources they are seen as a very clear frustration to the purposes of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am actually understanding the problem. This article still has 0 sources. It was created on 7 December, 2002. There are article on US senators at the time that were not created until the fall of 2003. Beyond this, the name is just plain wrong. This should if we keep it be called List of people on Postage stamps of colonies in British North America. Newfoundland was not a Canadian province at any point the stamps were issued, nor were any of these other places. We have lines in here such as "The listings below are believed to be reasonably complete." By whom? How do we know this with no sources? Even if they are, why are people an important enough sub-group from postage stamps to cover so? What reliable sources show that we should give this special attention to people on postage stamps? I keep asking for reliable sources, and no one is producing them. Wikipedia is not a place to publish orignal research. The last edit of some substance was changing the number from 5 to 6, not because of some found source but because the article actually had 6 places listed? Even Postage stamps and postal history of Canada has had a notification of needing better sourcing for over a decade. This article literally went from July 2015 to October 2018 with no edits at all, even of the most trivial nature. This article has existed for over 19 years without sources. That is hoprefully a record. To get things in perspective Wikipedia was only launched in 2001. Wikipedia would not even reach 100,000 articles until sometime in 2003, yet somehow this article has stood since 2002 with absolutely no sources added to it ever. This situation is just plain not acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- If I do end up getting access to that book about postal stamps (see my comment above for the update), I'd likely be making an improvements to a series of articles regarding the history of postal stamps in Canada, so that should resolve your concerns. I think the article was titled provinces because provinces was a term used before it meant provinces of Canada. See Province of Canada. I'm not oppposed to the content being put at a title like you suggested, though. I'm also aware that the article has been unsourced for pretty much my entire lifetime, which I find absolutely fascinating. Clovermoss (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I do not think there are enough reliable sources to justify a content split from the general article on the postage stamps and postal history of Canada. A topic split is not justified based on the state of reliable sources on the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- We'll see, I guess. My point was more that I am making an effort to actually see if there are reliable sources that exist, even if no one's added them for 19 years. Not everything is nessecarily accessible online, even in 2022. That book isn't the only potential option, but it's the only material I know right now that definitively exists. AfD discussions can run for 7 days (or longer if they're relisted), so I'm not in any particular rush. It's been here 19 years, what's another week? I do have a job and obligations in real life. I do realize that the onus is on me to prove that sources exist, though. Clovermoss (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC), edited 18:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I personally have about eight printed works on the stamps and postal history of Canada and its forerunners, so there is plenty to work from. But at the same time, the claim is being made that this is all "trivia" and "philatelycruft", which if that's the consensus, then there is no possible source that will be deemed satisfactory. Stan (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Stan Shebs. Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I had to go to work. I try my best to always be polite and courteous to others. I will say that I've been active editor for about 3 and a half years and I wouldn't say the community as a whole displays nastiness as a new norm. I've had lots of friendly interactions with others. My experience might be a bit different because I don't often participate in potentially controversial areas like ANI, though. I will also say that I think it's inspiring that you started editing Wikipedia 19 years ago. The changes you must have seen. I also think that people are more likely to !vote keep if you cite the sources that you have. It sounds like you have an incredible collection and I would appreciate you sharing your knowledge with us. :) The museum did call me back on my dinner break, so it looks like I'll be able to access that book I was talking about. I had to reserve time to go see it on Wednesday. Even if you add sources, I think I'll still go. I wasn't that interested in stamps before, but now I'm at least intrigued. That's one of the reasons I like editing Wikipedia, it can broaden your horizons. Clovermoss (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC); edited 04:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind comments, that means a lot to me! So to take a specific example, I have the Robson Lowe "Encyclopedia of British Empire Postage Stamps" Volume V from 1973, which covers Newfoundland and British Columbia. Its 150-odd pages have quite a lot of detail, far more than seems reasonable for Wikipedia - "Air rate in 1933 was 30c, but there was no air service; in 1942, 9 cents per oz." Moving on to the coronation issue of 1911, there are no less than 10 members of the royal family featured, including Prince Albert the unexpected King George VI, and the obscure Prince John of the United Kingdom, in what I believe is his sole appearance on a stamp, ever. But at no point does Robson Lowe include a list of people on the stamps of Newfoundland, nor does it say anything like "people on stamps is an important topic, and future encyclopedists should make online lists with wiki links." The most one can say is that it takes care to identify the individuals accurately, with phrasing like "Duke of Connaught, uncle of King George V". Stan (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Stan Shebs, thank you. That was insightful. I will admit that I am slightly confused (maybe my mind isn't working right because it's 7 am). I have to go to work but I'll be back in ~8 hours or so. But I've read your comment a few times and it still isn't clear to me. Can you clarify if any of your books mention what people have been in stamps? Even if it's not in a list format, just verification that these stamps existed? Or is it about the general history of how stamps worked and how much they cost at the time, etc? I think you're saying that stamps featuring the royal family are discussed in depth? I think it's reasonable to assume a book wouldn't explicitly say "people on stamps is an important topic, and future encyclopedists should make online lists with wiki links" but if a published book has written about people on stamps, we can likely have a list about it. Clovermoss (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the Robson Lowe book individually describes and illustrates all of the stamps ever issued by Newfoundland, plus postal rates and other historical information about the postal system. The amount of detail varies; so the Wilfred Grenfell issue of December 1941 gets a half-page, including that the image on the stamp was from a painting by Gribble, design was approved by George V, etc etc. The Duke of Connaught stamp gets only the one line, exactly as I typed in above, and no background material on why the whole family was included in a coronation issue, an unusual step for those times. Typically there are more specialized works that go to that next level of detail. Stan (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Stan Shebs, thank you. That was insightful. I will admit that I am slightly confused (maybe my mind isn't working right because it's 7 am). I have to go to work but I'll be back in ~8 hours or so. But I've read your comment a few times and it still isn't clear to me. Can you clarify if any of your books mention what people have been in stamps? Even if it's not in a list format, just verification that these stamps existed? Or is it about the general history of how stamps worked and how much they cost at the time, etc? I think you're saying that stamps featuring the royal family are discussed in depth? I think it's reasonable to assume a book wouldn't explicitly say "people on stamps is an important topic, and future encyclopedists should make online lists with wiki links" but if a published book has written about people on stamps, we can likely have a list about it. Clovermoss (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind comments, that means a lot to me! So to take a specific example, I have the Robson Lowe "Encyclopedia of British Empire Postage Stamps" Volume V from 1973, which covers Newfoundland and British Columbia. Its 150-odd pages have quite a lot of detail, far more than seems reasonable for Wikipedia - "Air rate in 1933 was 30c, but there was no air service; in 1942, 9 cents per oz." Moving on to the coronation issue of 1911, there are no less than 10 members of the royal family featured, including Prince Albert the unexpected King George VI, and the obscure Prince John of the United Kingdom, in what I believe is his sole appearance on a stamp, ever. But at no point does Robson Lowe include a list of people on the stamps of Newfoundland, nor does it say anything like "people on stamps is an important topic, and future encyclopedists should make online lists with wiki links." The most one can say is that it takes care to identify the individuals accurately, with phrasing like "Duke of Connaught, uncle of King George V". Stan (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Stan Shebs. Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I had to go to work. I try my best to always be polite and courteous to others. I will say that I've been active editor for about 3 and a half years and I wouldn't say the community as a whole displays nastiness as a new norm. I've had lots of friendly interactions with others. My experience might be a bit different because I don't often participate in potentially controversial areas like ANI, though. I will also say that I think it's inspiring that you started editing Wikipedia 19 years ago. The changes you must have seen. I also think that people are more likely to !vote keep if you cite the sources that you have. It sounds like you have an incredible collection and I would appreciate you sharing your knowledge with us. :) The museum did call me back on my dinner break, so it looks like I'll be able to access that book I was talking about. I had to reserve time to go see it on Wednesday. Even if you add sources, I think I'll still go. I wasn't that interested in stamps before, but now I'm at least intrigued. That's one of the reasons I like editing Wikipedia, it can broaden your horizons. Clovermoss (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC); edited 04:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- We'll see, I guess. My point was more that I am making an effort to actually see if there are reliable sources that exist, even if no one's added them for 19 years. Not everything is nessecarily accessible online, even in 2022. That book isn't the only potential option, but it's the only material I know right now that definitively exists. AfD discussions can run for 7 days (or longer if they're relisted), so I'm not in any particular rush. It's been here 19 years, what's another week? I do have a job and obligations in real life. I do realize that the onus is on me to prove that sources exist, though. Clovermoss (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC), edited 18:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am actually understanding the problem. This article still has 0 sources. It was created on 7 December, 2002. There are article on US senators at the time that were not created until the fall of 2003. Beyond this, the name is just plain wrong. This should if we keep it be called List of people on Postage stamps of colonies in British North America. Newfoundland was not a Canadian province at any point the stamps were issued, nor were any of these other places. We have lines in here such as "The listings below are believed to be reasonably complete." By whom? How do we know this with no sources? Even if they are, why are people an important enough sub-group from postage stamps to cover so? What reliable sources show that we should give this special attention to people on postage stamps? I keep asking for reliable sources, and no one is producing them. Wikipedia is not a place to publish orignal research. The last edit of some substance was changing the number from 5 to 6, not because of some found source but because the article actually had 6 places listed? Even Postage stamps and postal history of Canada has had a notification of needing better sourcing for over a decade. This article literally went from July 2015 to October 2018 with no edits at all, even of the most trivial nature. This article has existed for over 19 years without sources. That is hoprefully a record. To get things in perspective Wikipedia was only launched in 2001. Wikipedia would not even reach 100,000 articles until sometime in 2003, yet somehow this article has stood since 2002 with absolutely no sources added to it ever. This situation is just plain not acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- When articles have persisted for over a deacade with no sources they are seen as a very clear frustration to the purposes of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wow! This article has had no sources for over 19 years! That has to be a record. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- To the extent that anybody thought about it, it would have been "duh, look in any stamp catalog, do we really have to tell people how to do that?". It's easy to add, but given that the deletion nomination asserts that there is no possible source that could make this list worth keeping, it seems like we need to get to consensus on that first. Stan (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- You actually do have to add sources to the article. WP:V and WP:RS aren't optional. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- To the extent that anybody thought about it, it would have been "duh, look in any stamp catalog, do we really have to tell people how to do that?". It's easy to add, but given that the deletion nomination asserts that there is no possible source that could make this list worth keeping, it seems like we need to get to consensus on that first. Stan (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)