Talk:Online post office

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This page should perhaps be combined with the hybrid mail and L-mail pages, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgombos (talkcontribs) 06:34, 10 April 2009

link directory of service providers[edit]

I've removed the directory of service providers, as Wikipedia is not the internet's yellow-pages. This is in keeping with WP:DIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM. It appears that (talk · contribs) disagrees with this, as they reverted the first time it was removed - but provided no reasoning for why it should be kept. I re-removed the content, with a request in the edit summary to discuss the links here. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Complying with WPs vision of excluding yellow pages does not entail destroying 95% of the useful content of the page. Removing the links might be considered acceptable by some (notwithstanding the value of references), but vandalizing a table full of useful subject matter content is unacceptable. The table has been restored because it well within the WP rules to describe an online post office in detail, with examples of the various functions and policies of an online post office. It is not outside the scope of Wikipedia to give readers detailed information of what different online post offices offer. The vendor links have been removed to ensure compliance with the yellow pages guidance. If it's aesthetics and cosmetics of the table presentation that someone disagrees with, I don't see a problem with converting the content into a paragraph form, as long as no content or concepts is lost. Jgombos (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
There's very little, if any viable content in the tables that is not already in the paragraphs above - specifically "examples of the various functions and policies" that you state you see in the table. The only bits I see of marginal additional value are that costs and contract terms vary by vender, and perhaps some of the "unique/exceptional features" could be mentioned as sometimes available - everything else appears to be adequately addressed in the existing paragraphs already. If you can identify the handful of bits you consider valuable, I'll merge that content into the paragraphs as well. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Most of the useful content in the table is not covered in the text. Specifically, the non-table text does not cover: geographic coverage areas, length of contracts and whether they start before they are useable, the existence of setup fees, the range of maintenance fees, the ala carte option, the option to intercept mail digitally, recycle options, CD archives, outbound option, color, cheque deposit, various types of documentation required for setup, searchable pdf, box number selection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgombos (talkcontribs) 15:11, 9 September 2009
I disagree with all of that being notable content that should be saved - especially as many of those items are only marketing benefits and not notable for their relationship to an online post office. A range of fees and a mention that some add setup fees is probably notable. The processing options are already addressed, and if they offer PDF isn't really notable, although CD archival would be notable. That some offer a check deposit service is a secondary lock-box type service offered by a handful of vendors, but a mention could be added. The documentation required to setup an account should be mentioned in the article.
But for the other items you mentioned ... I don't see much value in listing geographic coverage areas - especially as coverage tends to change (mainly expand) over time. Mentioning that contract terms for length of coverage can vary seems rather pointless - terms for length of any contract can vary, it's a given - although I could see mention that some require contracts while others do not. The only value I see in the table info on outbound options is referencing hybrid mail & L-mail, which are already in the article. Color and recycling are not notable. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
If there's no disagreement, I'll make the changes this coming week to eliminate the table and convert the items I identified above into prose within the article. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
In principle I don't object with replacing the table format with text, as long as all the useful and relevant information is retained. However, I'm a bit disgusted with the result. Two lousy sentences that don't even begin to give readers the layout of information that was there previously. So I agree with the changes on the part of (talk · contribs). If some time passes and I don't see a significant gain in replacing information that was lost in text, I'll probably restore the table. It's a loss at this point, and has disserviced the community. Barek - I wish you would use your time more constructively. Jgombos (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Please don't make it personal with insults - remember: comment on content, not on the contributor.
If there are specific points which you feel are missing, please point them out. Better yet, expand the text. But, re-adding the table does not improve the article, it merely restores inappropriate article content/format. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This article is essentially useless due to the extremely limited information presented. Really, it's just a definition at this point. Luckily, I decided to view the talk page here and discovered the discussion regarding the link as well as the graph mentioned above here, which are not updated but at least give a decent reference point to begin serious research into this subject. If a definition is all that is currently allowed in Wikipedia, why not merge the whole thing into Wiktionary? Sometimes, less is not more, it's just less.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:09, 21 May 2011

Wikia link[edit]

Adding a link to isn't appropriate. As a ref, it would fail WP:RS, and as an external link, it fails WP:ELNO #12.

--- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the link mentioned above ... the content at that wikia link is, essentially, a copyvio of the content forked from here as it fails to provide accredidation to the original authors from this site. Note also that turning around and spamming the link onto multiple articles is linkspamming, and can potentially result in user blocks or blacklisting of a link.
A better solution would have been to resolve the content issue here. Two paths were available, neither of which were persued. Either resolve the multiple issues in the original tables, or convert the material to prose. Lists are permitted on Wikipedia; but there are considerations to take on them. For conversion to prose, I attempted to switch over the text ... disagreements were expressed, but no effort was taken to expand the text, only postings to the talk page saying it needed to be expanded. But, as no alternate wording was ever proposed, nothing was changed.
If we do implement a list here, a big question is if it should be embedded within the article, or in a stand-alone page such as List of online post offices, or Comparison of online post offices. Personally, I prefer stand-alone lists; but it should be discussed before doing anything.
If we were to switch back to a list here, inclusion criteria must be developed. Wikipedia should not be an avenue for promotion of startups - at least a mention in thrid party publications (not just a press release) should be demonstrated. Ideally, enough of a mention that a company could meet WP:CORP, even if no article currently exists ... but consensus can permit lower thresholds beyond simply existing.
The next issue, as was mentioned previously, the original list contained marketing variations that were not notable for their relationship to an online post office. Notable aspects, not just every single marketing variation should be listed.
Third, and this is more personal preference, is the general layout of the table (ie: companies across the top, or along the side). Personally, I prefer companies down the side, as it is more scalable to add additional companies if/when more meet the inclusion criteria. While if you list them across the top as was originally done, eventually you are forced to scroll to the right after more companies are added than can fit on the screen, which is awkward.
--- Barek (talk) - 22:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)