Hi, You are all correct on archiving old pages that might be of research interest. We are all for that. The pages we hope to delete are about systems that never existed but were just talked about, and the idea was replaced by something else that exists now. It doesn't make sense for us to have those pages. Anything that is about something has been worked on, and is not active any more will be archived.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Paul J. Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > I am definitely on the side of archiving rather than deleting. Some of my > research interests involve looking at past documentation. Retrieving > outdated documentation is okay, as long as it is clear immediately that it > is indeed outdated. We can also enable searching from within WMF webspace > to exclude outdated documentation. There are many ways to accomplish these > goals: adding "Archived" to the title, making a new namespace, using > categories, etc. > > Paul > > Paul J. Weiss > PhD student, Information science > University of Washington > > At 2015-10-15 10:48 am, you wrote: > > >I've always thought that blanking the page and replacing it with a > template which says it's historical and *links* to the historical > version of the page would be a good solution that balances preserving > history with deemphasizing outdated information. > > This would make info show up in searches still, which we definitely do not > want. Seems that deleting is a better option. > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Neil P. Quinn <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I've always thought that blanking the page and replacing it with a > template which says it's historical and links to the historical version of > the page would be a good solution that balances preserving history with > deemphasizing outdated information. > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Dan Andreescu <[email protected] > > wrote: > > We have a documentation cleanup day coming up soon, and we've just got > > delete permissions so we can actually clean. > > Please don't delete old content, mark it as {{historical}} or > {{outdated}} and archive it instead. > > > I'm all for following the norm here, but wouldn't that mean it still shows > up in searches? That's what I'm trying to avoid, minimizing the > confusion. > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > > > > -- > Neil P. Quinn <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF>, > product analyst > Wikimedia Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > > _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > -- --Madhu :)
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
