Talk:Postage stamps and postal history of Turkey

A fact from Postage stamps and postal history of Turkey appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 May 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,808 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Turkey was so dissatisfied with its first set of stamps that it had France make the second set (example pictured)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/May.

Wikipedia

Philately Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Format problem[edit]

I'm having trouble formatting the Additional references and External links sections; they show up double spaced with extra bullets between each line. Any help appreciated. Ecphora (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I fixed it (partially). The problem was caused by two "cite" tags without closing "/cite" tags.

Sv1xv (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ecphora (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early mail service[edit]

Should also mention that there were two other post offices: Egypt and Gerogia. Egypt was Ottoman, but had its own postoffices throuh out the Empire. Georgia had a consular postoffice in Constantinople. This edit was added by88.229.138.211 (talk) and has been moved here for discussion and for references. Ecphora (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance of a mention of the local post in Constantinople- Is it philatelic or considered "Back of Book"? (Toby)

Certainly. If I get some free time, I will start on that. Or you can if you want to. Ultimately, if the article gets too big, we can break that off. Ecphora (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be looking to learn from the article! :) I have a couple of the stamps from the 1st issue that look very similiar to the D.B.S.R issue, (probably reprints) but both of which (local posts & the D.B.S.R) form part of the interesting (to me!) Ottoman/Turkish postal history & her general history. (Toby)

Forgeries[edit]

It is well known that there are many forged overprints, but the following sentence is not needed and does not contribute to the section: "Now many scolars are studying the forgeries. Philatelic studies never end thank God."

Sv1xv (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some formatting[edit]

I moved most of the images around, especially the galleries, which seemed extremely odd to be immediately after the section head instead of after some, or even all, of the text. I don't think I have ever seen a gallery come before the prose, unless it is a stand-alone gallery. I introduced the article title into the lead sentence as well as moving up an image into the lead. The lead looks much better but could be expanded to fit in with the style guidelines that states the lead should: serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. ww2censor (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I'll try to get the lead in shape. Ecphora (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the lead. I moved the image of the old PO out because it belongs better in another section and it's not a very striking image. I'm looking for a better one to include in the lead. Ecphora (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image overuse[edit]

Ecphora just a friendly note but I think you are getting carried away with the number of images. Galleries are discouraged and you might also want to read this image use policy. Just because we can add images does not mean we must add them and each section does not have to contain a stamp image. In any encyclopaedia it is the text which is paramount and the images are used to illustrate points made in the text, not just to beautify the article. I think this is starting to overuse images without sufficient supporting text. I can't say for sure that this article uses the most stamp images but I don't recall any others so populated. ww2censor (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cut some images. I'm pretty much running out of content on this one anyway. Unfortunately, I don't have much to say about the period after 1940. Maybe someone else out there would like to expand that. Ecphora (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem writing appropriate prose, but I don't even know the topic. I will have a look at some of my literature to see if I can help but I don't know it. Cheers & keep up the good work. ww2censor (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut a number of images, leaving the ones that I think are most important to the article and will be of most interest. Ecphora (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of damaged stamp[edit]

The article shows a Duloz stamp with cancel Trebizonde 83. This stamp is heavily damaged and therefore not representative, whatever the postmark looks like. I think this degrades the article. Arno-nl (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is about postmarks and the postmark is unusually clear so until an undamaged stamp with an equally clear postmark is available I think it should stay. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]