Talk:Dead letter mail

On 16 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Dead letter. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Why not merge this with Dead Letter Office?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Dead letter office into Dead letter mail as a separate section. Klbrain (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles are both very short and are about the same topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.176.100 (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Dead_letter_mail#Merger_proposal Addedentry (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because undeliverable mail is not always dealt with in a dead letter office. I can and is dealt with in the most convenient post office, sorting office, or dead letter office. ww2censor (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about an article about undeliverable mail itself which elaborates on the existence of dead letter offices, while mentioning how they are not always used, instead of rolling the concept of undeliverable mail into an article about offices which deal with it. The concept of dead letters seems like it would be more suited for being its own article because it is a more broad topic. Matt Sylvester Talk 15:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. The articles should be merged into an article with the title Dead letter mail. Bus stop (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Matt.syl, support merging into Dead letter mail, more general topic. I will do it next time I get a moment. Jdcooper (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original merge proposal is dead on arrival but an expanded Dead letter mail article that includes Dead letter office information may work because Undeliverable mail is dealt with in different places, such as, sorting offices, regular post offices and Dead letter offices. The consensus seems to be clearly against the original merge but the reverse seems like a reasonable one. ww2censor (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misplaced modifier.

"Being internal departments within postal administrations, little information about the dead letter office function has ever been made public" contains a misplaced modifier.

The office is the thing "being" an "internal department."

It is not "little information" that is "being" an "internal department." Sentence should be revised.

"Being" is a gerund functioning as a participle, and here the participle is applied to the noun "dead letter office", which means that "dead letter office" should come immediately after the comma.

-dizzup

Requested move 16 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead letter mail → Dead letter – Dead letter and dead letter mail are two terms for the exact same thing. Best to go with the shorter and simpler title. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "dead letter law".[1] This needs "mail" to determine the topic. "Dead letter" to me would appear to be for laws. Move the disambiguation page to the base name -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but we have an entire article about dead letter mail, but barely a dictionary definition about dead letter law. Not to mention that any attempt to make a page about dead letter law would inevitably be a disambiguation page, since there are many different reasons why a law might be so Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need such a disambiguation page, it would be a broad concept article, as part of unenforced law, together with other uneforcements -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - The album Dead Letters is the only other contender for primary topic I see based on pageviews, but either the mail or the law concept will likely win as primary topic based on historical significance. Where the concept of unenforced law comes in it's a bit less clear. Google trends indicates the topic shows up more in US searches unsurprisingly, and ngram seemed inconclusive, with most initial google books results for "dead letter" referring to mail-based topics. Google scholar shows that the term is also often used as a metaphor, most likely referring to mail. I can see this being ambiguous as well, but based on the cultural references I'm seeing between use as a metaphor and the prevalence of its use in books, I can see mail being a primary topic, but only just barely so and I might change my mind if I see other evidence. ASUKITE 16:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PRECISE, as I think there is a high potential for ambiguity and confusion with Dead letter law, as Webster's Dictionary shows that as the first definition for "dead letter". That, combined with my general experience makes me think that when someone refers to something being a "dead letter", the more common usage is something other than this article. And for that reason I would probably either redirect Dead letter to Unenforced law or make it a disambiguation page. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.