Talk:Airmail

2003 post

Please see note on Wikipedia talk:Make only links relevant to the context. Viajero 12:56, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

1917 Italian stamps

I've read Italy in 1917 had the first airmail stamp, but I can't source it. Can somebody confirm & include? Trekphiler 11:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's mentioned in Cabeen, which I added. Stan 15:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I want to know how much time a Air Mail takes to deliver a envelope from Morristown, TN to India Chennai. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.247.215.210 (talk • contribs).

• You'll have to ask at your local post office. --Firien ^{need help?} 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mailplane?

I don't personally understand why an e-mail application for OS X, Mailplane is linked from Airmail. I don't think the similar names qualify. - MSTCrow 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Because someone screwed up a page move, but it is ok now. Had you looked at the history of Mailplane you would have seen the error immediately. Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers ww2censor 10:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Translation

What page are you using for the translation? Because it is a draft, it should possibly be here because some integration work is needed before putting into the mainspace. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The translation page can be found here, which is the usual page for pending translations. I don't know if it is necessary to proofread the finished translation before merging it into the existing article, it would make more sense to proofread the whole article afterwards. — Tirkfl^talk 09:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would expect we really to have to proofread first, then copyedit to remove or add extraneous information and finally add references before merging with the current article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tirkfl, I was hoping to get some work done on this before you started putting sections from the translation into the main article. Recently there have been complaints/discussions about doing translations of foreign language featured articles not being such a good idea because the requirements for many of the non-English wikis are not as high, so a straight translation and post to a new, or existing, article will not comply with current en wiki standards. I had been hoping to copyedit and provide inline citations, so anything done would comply with current standards before transferring into the existing article. Hopefully you will allow me some time to do that now that I think I have some time to devote to it. Perhaps you can help do that with me if you have some references. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in reviewing what you did already put in is rather weirdly written and makes very little sense to me. There are some very odd expressions being used and there is not even one reference given. That's the problem I was concerned about, so let's see what we can do. I think it will be better to get it right before transferring rather than have to fix it later or re-edit. I would also suggest removing the merge template for now until we are ready. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Unfortunately I cannot help you with the references because I don't have any book on general philately. I thought it would be a good idea to add the merge-template at the top of the article in order to draw more attention on the translation. In my opinion the main problem with the translation (besides the missing refs) is that it focus on European/German history. That is why I added the information on the consignments, stamps and cancellations. I hope we will get this article up some classes as soon as possible. Kind regards, — Tirk·fl  ^“…”  08:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tirkfl, I hope you don't mind then, but I will temporarily revert your additions of consignment mail. I have never ever heard that term, so will review the whole thing and in order to try and strike a balance, will make an attempt to not allow what is added to be too Euro/Germany-centric. I have the following books as reference to provide inline citations from for the translated article before adding to the mainspace. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Zilliacus, Laurin (1956). From Pillar to Post. London: William Heinemann. p. 217.
• Mackay, James A. (1971). Airmails 1870–1970. London: B.T. Batsford. p. 216. ISBN 0713403802.
• Via airmail : an aerophilatelic survey of events, routes, and rates. Chicago: American Air Mail Society. 1992. p. 2242. ISBN 0939429012. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Ferrugia, Jean (1980). Carrying British Mails. London: National Postal Museum, London. p. 87. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Hornung, Otto (1970). The Illustrated encyclopedia of Stamp Collecting. London: Hamlyn. p. 319. ISBN 0600017974.
• Smith, Henry Ladd (1942). Airways: The History of Commercial Aviation in the United States. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 460.
• Harmer, Cyril Henry Carrington (1984). Newfoundland Air Mails. Cinnaminson, NJ: American Air Mail Society. p. 181.
• Vachon, Georgette (1974). Goggles Helmets and Airmail Stamps. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin & Co. Ltd. p. 150. ISBN 0772006199. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Newell, Alexander (1987). British External Airmails until 1834. London: Newall Consultants Ltd. p. 227. ISBN 0951074903.

Discussion on the draft of revised article

I have moved the discussion here as my talk page is not the best place for wider input:

Comments on Draft Airmail article re-write

I read the draft article and understand its basically from the translation of some article of German origin. With that understood, I think its a great start that would be improved in the following ways. These thoughts just reflect the way I see the overall subject of Airmail as it might be reflected in a WP article.

• Airmail as a means of transporting mail today is distinctly different than what airmail was pre-WWI, Post WWI, and immediately post WWII. These, as I see it, are the major eras of Airmail. To a lesser extent, the WWII period was merely an interupted and adaption period to the Post WWI period norms because of the contigencies of war. To that end, the article should reflect these major periods with emphasis on the significant difference between Airmail in 1935 or 1955 and today.
• Airmail as a topic has three basic components
  • The evolution of military, geopolitical and commercial communications by some airborne means
  • The technical evolution of the airplane and related conveyances
  • The evolution of business models to fulfill communications requirements while exploiting emerging airborne conveyance technology.
• The pre-WWI era relative to airmail was a dual track era that includes both the development of the airplane and the development of political, military and to some extent commercial communications being carried or conveyed by an airborne entity--balloons, pigeons, etc. (This is where are the pre-cursor stuff gets talked about)
• The post WWI era is where the real meat of the Airmail article should be. This is the era that saw the commercial adaption of the airplane to postal operations. The detail required here is enormous and organization is really important. The adpation was not straight forward and all sorts of national interests (postal systems and empire), commercial business models (airlines and such), as well as technology (navigation, night flying, payloads) played a significant role in what airmail was in 1920 to what airmail was in 1940.
• The post WWII era starts as an extension of the interwar period, albeit signficantly affected by the results of the war (things were different during the war but essentially revert to pre-war norms after the war). However, for all sorts of business model and technology reasons, airmail today is vastly different from what it was in 1950. This transition needs to be evident in the article.
• As a whole, the article should be written as country neutral. In other words, none of the section headings or major themes in the article should refer to a specific country, while all significant related country events in a particular section or theme would recieve equal treatment.
  • An example of this might be if one was discussing the rise of the various International airmail business models in the post WWI period, one would compare and contrast the various models that evolved:
    • Great Britain - Passengers and Mail together, slow, well serviced routes, with good volume per route (Imperial Airways)
    • France - Mail only, High speed, low volume per route (N. Africa and S. America via catapult flights)
    • Netherlands - Mail only, High speed (not as high as France, but with higher volumes)
    • U. S. - Adaptation of British model to Pacific Ocean (Pan Am Clippers)
• Down play the philatelic content, especially as it relates to the major themes and sections of the article. The article is about Airmail, not Aerophilately. Any emphasis on philately invites downstream edits that skew the detail toward aerophilately. In fact, to some extent, we might want to consider the Airmail article as a Summary Style article as it relates to Aerophilately with the effect of driving aerophilatelic details to other appropriate articles.

Ww2Censor--I wasn't quite sure where to put these comments relative to the whole WP Philatelic project but feel free to move them and tweek me on anything you'd like to discuss about them.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find using "Airmail (or air mail) is mail that is transported by aircraft." to define "Air Mail" is actually misleading. A great deal of the mails that are transported currently by air (particularly in the United States) are actually First Class mails and other classes of service which are not charged a premium rate and are not classed as "Air Mail" by the USPS. The premium rate and service mails in the US are products such as "Express Mail" which also include additional services such as real time tracking, delivery confirmation, and guaranteed Special Delivery by a time certain. (If the time certain delivery is not met then all postage and fees are refunded.) Air Mail as a separate letter service has not actually existed in the United States for domestic mails since 1977. (You can find all the references and sources for this in Airmails of the United States.) (Centpacrr (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

Centpacrr - It took me a couple of re-reads to get your point from the above comment and I want to see if I interpeted you correctly. You believe the article on Airmail should focus on airmail as a class of service or in the absence of any formal classification at the time a type of service. The article rightly then covers the origins, evolutions and utimately the current state of such class of service. You also believe that the airmail article should not be based on a definition that defines airmail as mail carried by aircraft, since based on technological and business model advances, the great majority of ALL mail is carried on aircraft nowadays--ie airmail is the rule, not the exception.

I would concur wholeheartedly with my first interpretation--that Airmail the article--should focus on airmail as a class of service (or type of service). It is logical and would prevent having to explain why a USPS priority mail is not really airmail even through some USPS priority mail items are carried by aircraft. Additionally when dealing with historical facts and evidence, the class of service approach is a much better organizing premise than -- mail carried by aircraft. I have covers in my collections that were mailed by the sender as airmail--ie. they paid for a special class of service--yet the actual transportation of the mail to the recipient involved collectively: trucks, ships, trains and airplanes.

My vote is strongly in favor of organizing the airmail article on a class or type of service premise, not the aircraft premise.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I agree 100% with you that Air Mail is a class of service, not any and all mail carried at some point by air without regard to the class at which it is franked. Please see the introduction that I wrote for the Airmails of the United States article that I am working (it is still in an early stage) for an example of my approach to this. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

Air mail article proposed outline

If a consensus develops that the Airmail article should be about Air Mail as a class or type of service then I might suggest the following macro organization. The section headings I am suggesting recognize a couple of realities as relates to airmail and aero philately.

• Reality # One – Airmail as a type or class of service is really a business model discussion, not a philatelic discussion
• Reality # Two – Most philatelic sources have treated Air Mail as mail carried by aircraft during its early years, only transitioning to Air Mail as a class of service once the business models were actually established. The result is that a great many covers that are labelled ‘’Air Mail’’ covers are thus labelled from a Philatelic perspective not a business model perspective. The lines between Aero Philately and Airmail are extremely blurry. Philatelic sources maybe very useful in this article, but Air Transport and Postal Communications sources should take precedence.
• Reality # Three – Air Mail as a class of service is inextricably tied to the evolution of commercial air transport.
• Reality # Four – Air mail as a class of service has experienced several eras—an evolutionary and experimental era (18x – 1919), a commercialization era (1919 – 1950s), and its decline. (1960s to present)

Here’s my first cut at what the outline might look like

Air mail is a class or type of postal service that has traditionally provided the sender faster delivery of postal communications because the mail was ostensibly carried by aircraft instead of surface or seaborne means. Air mail traditionally was a premium, more expensive service for the sender because the mail arrived at its destination faster and was essentially more expensive for the postal authorities to transport than surface mail. Air mail postal rates were typically based on the weight, size and destination of the article being mailed. Prior to WWI, air mail was mainly an experimental means of postal communications as postal authorities, militaries and entrepreneurs began to exploit the rise of aviation. Air mail as a class of postal service grew in importance along with the growth of commercial air transportation in the post WWI era. Airmail as a distinct, important and premium class of postal service began to decline in many parts of the world as air transportation became ubiquitous and the cost differential between surface, seaborne and air transport of mail became negligible.

Experimental and demonstration air mails (18xx to 1919)

Post WW I development of air mail services

Air mail on the European continent

North American air mails

Expansion of air mails into European colonies and Asia

Atlantic and Pacific ocean airmails

Air mail disruption during WWII

Air mail and the jet age

The decline of Air Mail as a premium postal service

--Mike Cline (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

I have not yet had time to digest the proposal, but remember that the draft page is far from complete or even necessarily organised in a final form. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Airmail and Airmail Stamps

As I was pondering on the Airmail article and the above discussion, I was considering how the idea of the Airmail Stamp would fit into the Airmail article. I found this already in WP: Airmail stamp redirects to Airmail etiquette and the airmail etiquette article contains the following sentence: The airmail etiquette may be omitted if airmail stamps are used on the letter, and in some cases even this is not necessary if a country sends out all its foreign mail by air. A bit of an infinite loop here. Clearly we need an article entitled Airmail stamps that is complementary to the Aerophilately and Airmail articles.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember that many articles were written before sources were required or even requested, so there will be errors to be found. Happily there now seem to be a few people around who are snaking their way around things and will hopefully update and verifiably reference these. While we could possibly use an Airmail stamp article in its own right, I intend to include some mention of the airmail stamps in the main airmail article, so the redirect could then be directed there, until such time as a stand-alone article is warranted. ww2censor (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

With the explicit understanding that many current articles in WP are in error -- the nature of collaborative editing -- I find the following snippet of your comment to be confusing at best, and counterproductive to consensus building (what I hope we are trying to do) at worst. You said: until such time as a stand-alone article is warranted. Are you saying an Airmail Stamp article is not warranted today? Your position on the question is unclear and vague. I clearly stated that I thought an Airmail Stamps article should be written that complements the Airmail and Aerophilatelic articles. I gave my rationale. I was seeking input and consensus on that position. If you feel an Airmail Stamp article is not needed then say so or say why you support the creation of such an article. But don't equivicate. As a relatively new participant in the Philately project I am trying to participate thru the WP consensus building model. Please participate with me.--Mike Cline (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that there are many article with errors but we do find some on occasions. Perhaps you are confused but if you, Mike, or someone else, are prepared to write the Airmail stamp page, I have no objection at all and will support it fully (there is quite a bit in the translated article to start with), but if no one is going to write it now my words: "until such time as a stand-alone article is warranted" refers to that status quo. I don't see how that is counterproductive to consensus building at all. Anyway, I intend adding a summary section to the Airmail article, probably reducing what is there now. If there is no new article now that section will be all there is on airmail stamps and, as with many articles, sections do grow until it is necessary to hive them off into new articles in their own right which would then become the airmail stamp article instead of an incorrect redirect. Is that clear enough? BTW, are you intending to actually join the Philately WikiProject? We need more active participants. ww2censor (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

In the History section, 5 paragraphs from the end, the paragraph begins with

In the same 1928 when this was published

What is the "same 1928"? How could there be a different 1928? Is this wording an artifact of an edit? Should it say "In the same year this book was published"? Or just simply "In 1928"?

Ed8r (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done ww2censor (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

External Link

Permit me to recommend an external link to an immense and informative resource "Air Mail Pioneers" http://www.airmailpioneers.org/ Editors of this article may want to include footnotes to selected pages at that site. If so, I shall be pleased to participate with suggestions. 81.53.252.2 (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Niquette (talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Airmail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105213334/http://www.navhindtimes.in/panorama/first-airmail-flight-world to http://www.navhindtimes.in/panorama/first-airmail-flight-world

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airmail. 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/20080618174823/http://www.usps.com/communications/news/stamps/2005/sr05_020.htm to http://www.usps.com/communications/news/stamps/2005/sr05_020.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airmail. 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/20080625002518/http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/blanchard/DI10.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/blanchard/DI10.htm

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) 10:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)