Talk:Penny Black VR official

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.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2007 posts[edit]

The above searches yield a single result of this book: A catalogue of British, colonial, & foreign postage stamps, by a collector. For the avoidance of doubt, this is a trivial mention. The web site of the catalog mentioned in the article gives no results. However, even if the VR official is mentioned in 2 catalogs, that would almost certainly be insufficient for WP:N, which requires multiple non-trivial mentions. Addhoc 14:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I have the *physical printed catalog* sitting eight feet away from me, and have personally confirmed that the content in this article is a good representation of the full page of material that is in the catalog. Why should I care what lame crud you can or cannot find online? Show me a policy that says only online material is accepted as references. In any case, WP:N is just a guideline, meaning that when an expert philatelist says you don't know what you're talking about, you accept his word for it. (Funny, on the mailing list, we were just discussing the spreading misuse of WP:N - now I have my personal anecdate.) Stan 03:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Ww2censor for including another reference. Addhoc 13:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read WP:N and unfortunately it does leave itself open to misuse as it is impossible to define an acceptable reference, especially in a specialist field like philately. Even so, I have seen this particular user engaging in this sort of activity elsewhere on the site and receiving a similar response. I could understand his position if the article had no references listed because then he could justifiably place a tag there, but to try and disqualify a source he knows nothing about is frankly timewasting. --GeorgeWilliams 10:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]