Open Stack

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Bob Ball <bob.ball at citrix.com> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berrange at 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 page which warns users that the content is out of date and asks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
:).

- Ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20130829/c8e61b4b/attachment.html>