On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 22:23:45 +0200 Stefan Reinauer stefan.reinauer@coreboot.org wrote:
- Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at [130402 16:50]:
please make Patrick and me (or at least him :) a (coreboot) wiki admin so that we can delete obsolete pages, thanks.
Hi Stefan!
done.
Stefan, too.
Thanks!
I propose the deletion of the following pages and will do so if no one vetoes within the next 4 days: http://www.coreboot.org/Flashrom http://www.coreboot.org/Flashrom/0.9.0 http://www.coreboot.org/Flashrom/0.9.1 http://www.coreboot.org/Flashrom/0.9.2 http://www.coreboot.org/Flashrom/NIC3Com http://www.coreboot.org/Flashrom/FT2232SPI_Programmer http://www.coreboot.org/Flashrom/Live_CD http://www.coreboot.org/Flashrom/Random_notes http://www.coreboot.org/Flashrom/Mailinglist http://www.coreboot.org/SerialICE [end of list]
The german welcome page is somewhat outdated and not ranked favourable by google and it is not very often visited (~3500 times, which seems to be the value produced by spiders). Opinions? http://www.coreboot.org/Willkommen_bei_coreboot http://www.coreboot.org/Welcome_to_coreboot/de forwards there.
Pages that need an update or deletion: http://www.coreboot.org/Viewvc ... Maybe we should create a wiki page listing them all? :P
Good candidates for obsolete pages: http://www.coreboot.org/Special:AncientPages Although many of them are harmless cruft. They increase the database and may reduce usability a bit when looking at http://www.coreboot.org/Special:AllPages but there is no inherent risk for misery (e.g. http://www.coreboot.org/SHREK) I don't see the point in keeping them, but I won't touch any of them without further discussion.
Then there are some ancient pages where I have no idea if they are just documenting really stable stuff or were abandoned (e.g. http://www.coreboot.org/Payload_API) Adding information that can help readers to assess the actuality would make sense (modification time of the page does not really help), because without that no one with FOSS experience would dare to think of it as valid information. For the payload API above the code location would be such an information. In general I think similar information should reside in the code itself only (as lengthy comment) anyway. I won't touch them either.
If anybody else is interested in cleaning up stuff, please post your ideas...