On 3/24/25 09:01, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 01:51:31PM +0100, Thomas Lange wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:39:10 +0000, Steve McIntyre <st...@einval.com>
>>>>>>> said:
>>
>> > Why remove documentation on what has been considered and done in the
>> > web team? What harm are those pages causing?
>> To improve the ratio between good and outdated content.
>
> Just because content is not super-fresh, that does not make it
> *bad*. What happens when people start planning another project and
> look for documentation about what was considered and what happened
> last time, for example?
>
> This is *not* user-facing documentation, this is documentation about
> what has been worked on inside the web team. By all means move/rename
> it under the team's area in the wiki, but *don't* just remove it
> because it's old.
>
> Deletion of history *for the sake of it* is not helpful.
>
Both of you make valid points, perhaps we come up with another option to
add a header stating the article/documentation is no longer relevant
pointing to a new link as is practice elsewhere, or we come up with an
'archived' flag which could equally show the page is not longer relevant.
--
Be well,
-Donald
--
-
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Donald Norwood
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ B7A1 5F45 5B28 7F38 4174
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ D5E9 E5EC 4AC9 BD62 7B05
