 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Cut-out (philately) Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Cut-out (philately) |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Cut out edit
Strictly speaking "Cut to shape" is a subset of "Cut-out (philately)", for which there is no article yet. Perhaps, as you have already started to talk about "Cut square", it might be a better approach to make this an all encompassing article (with cut to shape as a redirect because of renaming) starting with cut outs and various subsets thereof, such as cut square, cut to shape and cut round (for advertising rings) and some background information about postal administrations that do and do not permit cut outs. Personally I don't know much about it but am happy to look up my literature. What do you think Ecphora? ww2censor (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is an article on Cut square, and I suppose I assumed that cut square and cut to shape basically divided the universe. I do think it's helpful that both terms now appear under Category:Philatelic terminology. It certainly would be relevant to add information about postal administrations' positions on cut stamps used postally (which I think could be addressed here), but unfortunately I don't have any information on that topic. I think I need to buy some more reference material. Regards, Ecphora (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
