Why not just update the outdated pages with new ones...i know it will take some time but that should solve the issue
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 20:24 Donald Norwood <don...@debian.org> wrote: > > > 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 To improve the ratio between good and outdated content.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 > >
