Talk:Stanley Gibbons

Need unbiased sources

The only potential sources for this information seem to be from Stanley Gibbons itself, which may be why it reads like a promotional brochure. I'd like to ask interested editors to include some unbiased sources and tweak the text to sound more like an encyclopedia article. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been rewritten to give it an objective tone. The only useful source material is the company itself and its various publications. With most companies you have to speak to them to get their history; the trick is not to make it look promotional as Jeffq rightly points out. --Jack 12:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If I remember rightly there was a time (in the 1970s ?) when the company went rather off the rails and was quite controversial in philatelic circles, but I can't recall the details. Anyone remember? -- Arwel (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Gibbons catalogue

Although at the moment it's a redirect to Stanley Gibbons, I would suggest creating a separate article for Stanley Gibbons catalogue. This is one of four major world catalogs and it's important to represent it as a separate article in English Wiki (cf. Scott catalogue). Moreover, separate articles are already available in other Wikis: de:Stanley Gibbons Katalog, es:Catálogo Stanley Gibbons, ru:Стэнли Гиббонс (каталог марок), pt:Stanley Gibbons (catálogo filatélico). Hope others support this idea here. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how notable the catalogue is in its own right. What more can be said that would be interesting or enlightening? Maidonian (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your opinion. But do you also think that Scott catalogue, Michel catalog, Zumstein catalog, Facit catalog, Fischer catalog, Ruch catalog, Austria Netto Katalog, Higgins & Gage World Postal Stationery Catalog and Soviet Union stamp catalogue are not notable catalogues in their own right? Do we have to have information about stamp catalogues only within articles about dealers and publishers who produce them? I would prefer to turn a Stanley Gibbons catalogue section into a separate article and would like to hear what other users think in this respect. Regards, --Michael Romanov (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Separate article for catalog would make sense, for categorization if nothing else. And there's plenty of things about the catalogue that mystify me a little, and that I would like to see in an article - first publication, publication history, the relationships of specialized vs general, editorial decisions, political influences on editorial decisions (a la Scott not listing Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, etc), numbering scheme, is catalog sold at profit or loss, etc. I'd bet that a hardworking group could get it to FA even. Stan (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Ecphora (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not necessarily against it, I am just asking whether the subject can support a whole article? Most of the audience would already be philatelists and they can read the notes at the start of the catalogue. I have already included a few relevant points in the Stanley Gibbons article. I would think that non-philatelists would have almost no interest in the subject. I know I created the Higgins & Gage entry but I only did that because there was nothing else meaningful about it in one place on the web (and it is still a bit thin). I am definitely against trying to raise an entry on the SG catalogue to FA status (even though I use it constantly). Wouldn't Philately be a better choice! Maidonian (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And I suppose what I am saying is that if he have an entry for the firm, we probably don't also need one for the catalogue. For instance, I assume that although there is an article for the Michel catalog there is not also one for the firm that produces it? And the same for Fischer, Facit etc? Maidonian (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I do have a Stanley Gibbons catalogue - from 1980. So I don't know if any of the notes at the front are still correct for current catalogues, and WP kind of loses its reason to exist if we simply say "no article, read the original" :-) As for limited interest, well, this is an encyclopedia with hundreds of articles on individual railway stations and city streets. My point about FA is simply that this is not a subject that is intrinsically thin, there is a lot to say once you start addressing all the questions that might arise. (And there is a key non-philatelist connection - it is very common for non-philatelists to try to use a catalogue to value an inherited collection, only to discover that an actual dealer offers much less! So part of our mission to provide objective background info on the situation.) Stan (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as it is a proper article and not a stub then I do not oppose it. Maidonian (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP editor

The recent edits by an anonIP appear to be a conflict of interest at best, which I have warned them about, especially because it is an SPA. Information can be added with sources but do not remove sourced information unless it is false and you have source to back it up. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stanley Gibbons. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bishopsgatecommunications.com/upload/file/140308%20final%20results%20SG.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stanleygibbons.com/corporate/company-information/company-directors.aspx

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stanley Gibbons. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003105307/http://www.stanleygibbons.com/corporate/company-information/company-details.aspx to http://www.stanleygibbons.com/corporate/company-information/company-details.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225330/http://www.gibbonsstampmonthly.com/Journals/GSM/Gibbons_Stamp_Monthly/July_2006/attachments/sgstory.pdf to http://www.gibbonsstampmonthly.com/Journals/GSM/Gibbons_Stamp_Monthly/July_2006/attachments/sgstory.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bishopsgatecommunications.com/upload/file/140308%20final%20results%20SG.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stanleygibbons.com/corporate/company-information/company-directors.aspx

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) 10:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)