Wikipedia talk:Dead letter office (proposal)

Untitled
This may well be a good idea. It's like a kind of rating or categorisation system for new articles. Perhaps this will shorten VFD and keep some articles from falling through the cracks. It needed some more spaces, though. -- Tim Starling 12:23 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * The overriding idea is that it should produce more articles and better articles. Not that it wouldn't alleviate some problems with the existing structure of wikipedia, but that wasn't my primary goal in devising the draft. For the page to be a long term boon, it cannot be aimed at addressing any temporarily prevalent problem. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 12:38 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just a short note. I have been timid and posted Waitingroom (draft version) because I didn't have the boldness to post it as a off the shelf functional page. You may want to polish it or discuss it on its talkpage. (Just don't delete it as patent nonsense :) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 08:26 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't get it. What does this page do over "requested artciles" and "pages needing attention"? CGS 09:44 23 Jul 2003 (UTC).

It is intended to facilitate triage of new articles. A short page to which one could swiftly add those pages which one is unable to figure a useful modus operandi for, but which definitely need something done for them. And stop newbie tests cluttering VfD. Quite a few of new articles spend only a few moments on VfD. Section editing will address the file-lenght problem with VfD, but it would help if there were a separate page for those that one did not feel need to be debated at length. Oneword comments, quick in, quick comments, quick out and then to "pages needing attention", Vfd, or whatever. I know the concept probably needs to be clarified a lot. While many of the current problems will be palliated by the section editing facility any moment now, still when in the future the flow of new articles truly explodes, we will still need a lightweight and fleet of foot mechanism to provide first aid and triage to new articles. At least that is what I think. Any opposing points of view welcome. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 10:07 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Waiting room isn't very descriptive (although I still don't get it). How about Sorting Room, In Pile or something? CGS 11:29 23 Jul 2003 (UTC).

Well, I guess I was trying to be pc in a funny sort of way. My first idea was to call it Purgatory or Limbo. The "waitingroom" metaphor was intended to evoke the idea of a kind wiki-doctor coming and examining the patient (problematic new article); maybe with a second opinion or few. And then the patient would be sent to the right ward, declared D.O.A. or given a clean bill of health. My idea was also that someone who put the article on the list, would have done the samaritan equivalent of making sure a stranger gets to the waiting room of a Emergency Room type institution. I.E. a laudable taking of responsibility. But it is true that conseptually that image doesn't really meaningfully distinguish it from many other pages... Probably it does need a better title. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 11:54 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I'd say do it the other way round:

-- Tarquin 12:11 23 Jul 2003 (UTC) (why does it take on average 6 months for my ideas to filter through to people? arg!)
 * VFD - suspected copyright violation
 * VFD - pure junk
 * VFD - general


 * I have commented on Cimon's proposal on the talk page. In reply to Tarquin: Eloquence has said he doesn't like the idea of splitting VFD, on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. -- Tim Starling 12:42 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * deleted test was my attempt at a solution for "pure junk" and similar pages. However, it hasn't caught on, so I've been thinking of moving it to meta. Martin 16:16 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I remember thinking that a page like Deleted test would be a good idea (didn't do anything, though), but it probably didn't work, because almost everyone was made an admin, just after the Wikipedia:Delete test and welcome page was created, so almost noone needed it any more. &#1499;&#1505;&#1497;&#1507; Cyp 17:09 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I should expound a bit more on my intentions. The page is not meant to supplant any other page, every facility currently active should continue as before. It is meant merely as a way of avoiding duplication of effort. Currently I think there are probably many people who read through all the new articles that appear. But if there were a page that only listed the problematic ones, maybe some would concentrate their effort at fixing or axing those, rather than trawling through the whole log of new articles.

It is a fact that at some point we are going to be at the position viz a viz new articles that we shall be trying to drink from a fire hose. There will be a greater plethora of new articles than it would be practical for every diligent weeder to go through himself to separate the ones needing help from those which are a-okay.

BTW. about the name. Would Wikipedia:ER, or Wikipedia:First -Aid be better? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 16:44 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oh Oh! An American english versus British english problem there. What Americans call the ER (Emergency Room) is called in Britain and Ireland A&E (Accident & Emergency). And I know other countries use other names. So ER is out, as much of the world don't use that. Anyway in Britain, ER means Elizabeth Regina, or Queen Elizabeth in latin! (ER appears on every policeman's helmet, every ministerial box, government department, every letterbox erected since 1952, etc) People might think that wiki had a page dedicated to Her Majesty! :-)


 * Wikipedia does have a page dedicated to Her Majesty. We're not completely backward... ;) &mdash;Paul A 14:48 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I still have no clue what this page is for. RickK 23:18 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing. No, I really mean that. If the concept is not obvious from reading the page, something needs to be clarified. Much. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 22:30 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Rick is right-- This needs to be simplified to the max. I will put it at User:Stevertigo/DLO --and start hacking-- anyone want to make any changes there or specific, nested, comments on the page (not talk) is welcome.&#25140;&#30505sv 19:49, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)~

Cleanup might be better way to refer to this instead of DLO or as a buffer.&#25140;&#30505sv 23:59, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Can somebody please patiently explain to me why this article is allowed to remain in the Wikipedia namespace, while Talk:Deletion management redesign has to fester away in an obscure corner of Meta where nobody ever seems to go? Thank you. GrahamN 16:06, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am very patient indeed. But the answer to your question does not require a very burdensome explanation. It is allowed to remain here, because no-one has raised the question before you did so.

As the creator of the page to which this is a talkpage to, (the proposal) probably should have started at meta, in retrospect I am sorry that I did not do so, if it piques you. I think it would be entirely appropriate to move this to Meta. In the long term, I don't personally think the separation of meta, and Wikipedia namespace is a useful one; as evinced by the substantial point of your question. But I would have to say, that I personally for a long time did not think being a mere (proposal) in the Wikipedia-namespace was a much more prominent address to have put up shop. (and hence I have quite a bit of sympathy with your sentiment)

I have been to meta:Talk:Deletion management redesign several times to read it. I will comment it there, once I have grasped it's significance. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 16:40, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

This should probably redirect to Newcomers' help desk. That page seems to be taking up the functionality that this proposal would have had. --Michael Snow 22:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)