Talk:Airmail stamps of Denmark

Experimenting with the best layout for the Usages sections

I am experimenting with two different layouts for the usages section. The 1925 section is done Gallery style while the 1934 section is done with a table. Any thoughts as to which is more appropriate for the article? Gallery style is easier to edit, but table style uses space better.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better title

Since these were the only airmail stamps Denmark ever issued and there were no "commemorative" airmails (as the title might suggest), I would suggest dropping the "Definitive" from the title, so that it reads more simply "Airmail Stamps of Denmark" Ecphora (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Philatelic and aerophilatelic circles I would disagree, but you are probably correct in an encyclopedia article.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Airmail stamps of Denmark" will be accurate and be cased properly, but why do we even need a separate article of these stamps? Would it not be better to expand the Postage stamps and postal history of Denmark article by merging it instead? So many of the "Postage stamps and postal history of x country" are too short and definitely not comprehensive as Postage stamps and postal history of Denmark is but this airmail stamps article is imho way too detailed for an encyclopaedia and reads like a specialised stamp catalogue. Please remember we are not creating a catalogue here but an encyclopaedia. Plate numbers, minutely detailed usages and quantities printed are stamp catalogue details and if, copyedited could well make a great section in the main Denmark stamp article. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the rest of this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately#How detailed should a philatelic article be?. Please continue there. Ecphora (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]