Wikibooks talk:Outdated books
Add topicArchive namespace?
[edit source]Repeating @Omphalographer's proposal over here. What do we think about creating a namespace like "Archive:" for handling outdated books? Courtesy ping @JJPMaster since you were part of the previous discussion and you drafted the policy. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Kittycataclysm: This looks good to me. I do think that if that is what we choose to implement, that there should be some namespace-level protection (like the MediaWiki namespace), since that namespace would almost never be edited by definition. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that would also prevent users from moving pages into the namespace, so only privileged users would be able to archive a book. I wouldn't be opposed to requiring a low level of privilege to place books in the archive or edit them while there (like autoconfirmed or reviewer), but requiring administrator rights feels like overkill. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Omphalographer: The primary idea was to prevent people from editing already archived books, not to prevent them from being moved, so maybe an edit filter would work as well. It's probably best to set it to "warn", since disallowing would create a security risk—it would allow any autoconfirmed user to fully protect a page by moving it to the archive namespace. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that would also prevent users from moving pages into the namespace, so only privileged users would be able to archive a book. I wouldn't be opposed to requiring a low level of privilege to place books in the archive or edit them while there (like autoconfirmed or reviewer), but requiring administrator rights feels like overkill. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do not support this - books are books and putting things in a separate namespace could cause people to think that it is "less" important. I do not see an issue keeping archived books in namespace. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect process
[edit source]The process described for setting up soft redirects (move without redirect, create a soft redirect manually) seems oddly convoluted. Is there a specific reason you're instructing reviewers to perform moves without leaving a redirect? Surely it'd be simpler for anyone archiving a page to follow the same process (move with redirect, replace redirect with soft redirect). Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Omphalographer: That just intuitively made more sense when I wrote it. I will replace it with your simpler suggestion. JJPMaster (she/they) 04:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Removing from search engines
[edit source]I do not see why that's required when {{Archived}} is used without an explicit override. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do think it's important to keep things searchable, so I'm also not sure why we would ever want to remove books from search indices. Was there a specific reason behind the original proposal to do so? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 04:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Kittycataclysm: It was based on the idea that an unsuspecting Google user might stumble upon the book and conclude that the information is still accurate, although the
{{Archived}}template alone might be sufficient for that purpose. JJPMaster (she/they) 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Kittycataclysm: It was based on the idea that an unsuspecting Google user might stumble upon the book and conclude that the information is still accurate, although the