A simple "thanks, just what I was looking for" from an OP should be sufficient feedback. In terms of good answers, it's up to the OP to decide what was helpful. Leave that for the notes and queries sections of papers that want to sell copies. Wavelength ( talk) 17:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Reply Strongly against the "cool question" notion. Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 72#cool question repository? (June 2010).Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 93#RD stars again (August and September 2012).What about a "could I have some further responses?" tag? Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Reply Here are links to archived copies of talk page discussions somewhat related to this one. Wavelength ( talk) 00:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Reply We could use the Resolved tag more often, perhaps. Lomn 00:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Reply I agree with your reason for not wanting the second subpage (the one with examples of how discussions should not be), and I thank you for reminding me of that policy. WP:DENY makes just as much sense in RD space, and a "hall of shame" undermines that. As for the other side of things, just no. Wavelength ( talk) 00:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Reply I think there's been discussion before on the meritorious thread idea, and while I don't remember the particulars, reception has generally been poor.
(Unfortunately, a discussion that seems to be a perfect candidate for the first subpage can be subsequently disqualified by one bad contribution.) " Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines" can have a link to each of those two subpages. There can be annotations for some or all of the links listed. Each of those subpages can have section headings corresponding to the different reference desks. The second subpage might be called " Wikipedia:Reference desk/Closet" or " Wikipedia:Reference desk/Hall of shame". The first subpage might be called " Wikipedia:Reference desk/Showcase" or " Wikipedia:Reference desk/Hall of fame". For discussions that meet none of the criteria, there can be another subpage, listing links to the archived copies of those discussions. For discussions that meet every criterion, there can be a subpage listing links to the archived copies of those discussions. There can be a list of criteria (maybe five or 10 or 15, for example) that qualify a discussion as exemplary. 27.2 Proposal B: Add interwiki links to all Wikimedia (presumably English-language) reference desks to Main Reference Desk page per Moxy below.27.1 Proposal A: Add interwiki link on Reference Desk Main Page to Tourist Office per Nicholasjf21 above.24 How about a brighter issue for a change.23 Yet Another Modest Proposal: Limit the number of questions any one person can ask.22 Suggest we add a line about searches and links to the RD template (RfC).19 Hilarious rape humor on the Ref Desk.17 Hatted off-topic content on Humanities Desk.14 question about sickness removed at Science Desk.13 Medical advice question removed at Science Desk.9 Are questions of moral value acceptable on RD?.7 New template glitch / can we add suggestion people provide links?.4 "being pedantic about the language skills of perfect strangers is kind of an asshole move.".