Talk:Cancellation (mail)

2003 posts

Not sure how to approach inclusion (in this article or another?) of somewhat obscure subject of private overprints, which are to be distinguished from private cancellations. Can anyone tell me about the private overprint of the recent statehood of Florida anniversary U.S. stamp? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:58, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You could try asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Angela

Thank you. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:12, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if there should be a separate article specifically on the killer. In my opinion this is an interesting subject about which there is a lot of information. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:44, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, general killer info should be in this article, since it's a synonym. This and the postmark article confusingly mix up their terms, I had to go look them up. The top of this article should say that people often call the combination of postmark and killer the "cancellation", then the rest of the article is free to discuss all the kinds of killers at length (with the links to fancy cancel etc for specialized subtopics). Stan 01:29, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"The United States Postal Service regulations prohibit the use of slogans or pictorial material in regular hand-stamped cancellations (whether with or without killers)"

Some clarification on this would be useful, particularly since there seem to be violations such as the Faneuil Hall postmark. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I've merged Pictorial cancellation to Cancellation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 04:40Z

Yeah, but you did not copyedit the existing information on pictorial cancellations with the newly pasted text. That was only half the job and I did not do it the other day for that very reason. There is some integration still to be done. ww2censor 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've integrated the text better now. (BTW, I think you meant "edit", not "copyedit".) If you have any further suggestions, please go ahead and make the changes. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 06:59Z

Great, thanks. BTW you are likely correct. I will make the inline references better by creating a ref section instead of direct inline link ref. I think that is better and possible in the guidelines. Cheers ww2censor 13:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article revision

I have done a major revision to the article. I removed a number of statements that were unsourced. Some I left in, but the article still could use some more work. Ecphora (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern detection of cancellations

There is still too much mail in most places for it to be reasonable for postal workers to inspect each letter/package/etc. to determine if proper postage was applied and that none of it was already cancelled. This must be done by some machine system that checks for prior cancellation and rejecting those items that bear postage that is so marked already.

I would like to suggest that an explanation of this topic be added to this article.Nutster (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nutster: Do you have any reliable sources for such information or is it just you own observations. I presume you know original research is not accepted, only sourced information. ww2censor (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is from my observations and conclusions, hence it is in the Talk page instead of the article. I am hoping that someone with access to verifiable facts, such as published articles from Canada Post, USPS, etc., could add a section to the article covering detecting prior cancellations. Unfortunately, that person is not me. Nutster (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what your saying but if you can't find such sources, then we probably can't either. If you do find some just post here again. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cancellation (mail). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

USPS BB Lady Washington 21 Apr 2019.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a photo to article with fair use rationale

File:SFJazzUSPS-BBCancellation-b.jpg

Blurred photo of USPS Building Bridges Special Postal Cancellation cachet Feb 23, 2019

Media data and Non-free use rationale
Description	Blurred image of USPS Building Bridges Special Postal Cancellation issued on Feb 23, 2019 shows that USPS issued a special cancellation for an event that also has pictorial elements. Typically USPS special cancellations do not have pictorial elements as well.
Author or copyright owner	Karen Earle Lile
Source (WP:NFCC#4)	[1]
Publication	[2]
Date of publication	26 Dec 2020
Use in article (WP:NFCC#7)	Cancellation mail
Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8)	to depict a historical event
Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1)	Not replaceable.
Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3)
Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2)	No commercial use.
Other information	USPS Building Bridges Special Postal Cancellation Feb 23 2019 by Karen Earle Lile is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Cancellation mail//wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Cancellation_(mail)true

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SoundNotater (talk • contribs) 22:58, 26 December 2020‎

What use is a very poor quality out of focus image? All non-free images MUST complete with all 10 non-free copyright criteria and the commons does not accept non-free images. ww2censor (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ww2censor I added this to the article because it fit the exemption rule for English Wikipedia and because there are no free images that show both a special cancellation slogan for an event and a pictorial image in the same mark. The article would benefit from a photo for this purpose. AngusWOOF and I had suggested to Karen Lile (the copyright owner) that she read all the rules and the wikipedia article she referenced specifically suggested blurring and making the image low resolution, which is what she did. Did you see her comments in response to your suggestion for fast deletion? If you don't feel that this image meets all 10 criteria, would you be so kind as to suggest what she can do. I can see that she is clearly trying to support the writers like myself who want images and have requested them. We await your suggestions. signed by SoundNotater Dec 26 9:24PM EST

So you want to know what she should do. I suggest you/she stop trying to insert an image by any devious means possible. WP:NFCC does not address the worries for poor image quality. It's just a really crap image and does not add to the reader's understanding of the topic, so fails NFCC#8. It's just decoration and does not enhance the article in any way besides its very poor quality. The other thing is that the commons does not accept non-free images which this is based on the overriding license restriction added to the commons image. ww2censor (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ww2censor I was so surprised by the tone of your message above, I decided to look over your contribution history. I see that you have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2005 or before. So you are Wiki writer royalty. I say this with a smile, not sarcastically. Contributing to this work for so long is certainly an accomplishment and shows a dedication to the cause, of admirable measure. Thank you for your criticism. Honored to have it. signed by SoundNotater Dec 27 10:56PM ET

Requested move 21 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved no consensus in favor of a move (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation (mail) → Mail cancellation – WP:NATURALDISAMBIG. Also saves two brackets. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are several different sorts of cancellation and this one is not called, or known as, a "mail cancellation". See Cancel. The bracketed suffix (mail) is a disambiguation term because of the fact there are other sorts of cancellations. ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Stamp cancellation Rreagan007 (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Stamp cancellation per Rreagan007. It's instantly recognizable, precise and natural. No such user (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in over 30 years of philately interest, and over 15 years here, I have never heard this term, nor is it known by that suggested term. Stamp cancellation is just a redirect for people who don't know any better. ww2censor (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose that's exactly because you're into philately, and within context of mail and stamps it's sufficient and reasonable to refer to it as bare cancellation. However, we're the encyclopedia for the broadest audience, and it's only logical that the act of canceling stamps is referred to as "stamp cancellation", exactly to make it WP:RECOGNIZABLE to people who "don't know any better". Having a WP:NATURAL title does not imply that it is exactly the term of art employed by specialists in the field. Nor would such a title mandate that we must use exact expression "stamp cancellation" throughout the article. No such user (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should in fact be using the WP:COMMONNAME and to my mind, with so many people doing handicrafts using rubber stamps, Stamp cancellation can just as easily be a cancellation made on anything with a rubber stamp and not specifically a cancellation applied to a postage stamp. I think, to be very clear, it is best to use a disambiguation suffix, no matter what the choice is. To that end Cancellation (postage stamp) could work but is longer than the current name Cancellation (mail), so there is little point in changing it. ww2censor (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Cancellation (stamp). It's not the mail that's being cancelled, it's the stamp. Stamp cancellation is not an often used natural and common name, so most people will be searching for just "cancellation", under C. Cancellation (postage stamp) is unnecessarily long and technically incorrect since revenue stamps are also cancelled. Station1 (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mail cancellation - not a common phrasing. I think the least ambiguous name would be Cancellation (postage), as both "mail" and "stamp" have multiple meanings. 75.162.124.147 (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flag cancellation

Is there or was there a law or policy in the U.S. prohibiting the postal service from allowing any cancellation marks to be superimposed on a printed image of a U.S. flag on an envelope or stamp? 2600:1702:1D00:9A80:9918:A1E5:B742:3C1A (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Happens all the time. — kwami (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]