On 29/08/13 05:42, Ryan Lane wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Bob Ball <bob.b...@citrix.com > <mailto:bob.b...@citrix.com>> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berra...@redhat.com > <mailto:berra...@redhat.com>] > > Sent: 28 August 2013 10:27 > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 01:06:01PM +1000, Tom Fifield wrote: > > > TL;DR - Obsolete page on the wiki? Consider moving it to the > > > Obsolete namespace. > > > Alternative proposals and thoughts very welcome!! > > > > So I think a better option is to define an "Obsolete Content" > > template which would add a prominent banner across the top of the > > page which warns users that the content is out of date and asks > > for contributions to update it. > > I agree that using a template in this way would be better than > moving pages to the Obsolete namespace. > > I do think that we should have some automatic process to mark pages > as possibly obsolete as well. > > Perhaps we could make better use of the categories? My thoughts are > having a category for pages that will automatically be marked as > obsolete, a category for potentially obsolete pages, one for > obsolete and another for pages which will never be obsolete, or > pages kept in that state for the archive (e.g. blueprints). > > Each page could also have a designated owner who can be contacted > when a page is being considered for moving to the obsolete category > - even if it's just a comment at the bottom of the page, or another > category - to give the human review element. > > I'm not very familiar with mediawiki - but perhaps templates would > be better used for all of the above. > > > One plus of using an Obsolete namespace is that it removes the pages > from the default search results when searching in the wiki. > > Maybe a template that applies a "To be obsoleted' category + a bot that > moves pages from the "To be obsoleted" category into the Obsolete > namespace after a period of time would be better? I have a feeling that > documents being moved into the Obsolete category are docs that will > never be updated, though. My original recommendation was for them to > just be deleted, so I think the current approach is more lenient. I > guess I'm just a deletionist :).
Yes - the removal from search was a big positive for me. There were some very old install instructions in there with generic enough page titles that there were still people trying to use them. I also feel that the kind of pages that get obsoleted are the ones that will never get updated. You can find some examples at the below link: https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=&to=&namespace=110 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
