Category talk:Documentation

Delete: outdated and this category without defined scope/purpose

See:

• Category:Templates/translations - not to be deleted ! This replaces several other former categories by language and uses the same hierarchy of translated categories for all languages, starting from the root Category:Categories, so that they are identical to the English hierarchy.
• Category:Tagging guidelines by country
• Category:Users by language
• Category:Key_descriptions_by_language
• Category:Tag descriptions by language
• and others.

Category:Documentation was created in 2005, before {{languages}} was fixed to work in "Category:" namespace. Personally I don't think is there need to update this outdated cat, I'd rather remove it entirely since all content may be accessed without using current top level cat Category:Categories which can be translated using languages template. Xxzme (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

There's been a complaint by a Czech user opposed to this removal (for the Czech Documentation) and that does not want such removal before there's a way to recategorize the content clearly.

For now the deletion request should be stalled (it cannot be performed now), and we need to properly separate the languages in their own category and make sure they don't disappear from a navigatable parent category.

This will take time, but I suggest you remove the "deletion request" and instead just keep on the "cleanup" request, to allow these contents to be recategorized properly.

Deletion requests shoul only be done on categories that have no longer any use, but your request is too much anticipated.

Also be careful when you rename English pages or categories that have a Languages template! Don't forget to keep the old English name in the parameter of "Languages" so that other versions still based on the older name (but using another language code prefix) are still referenced. And make sure you've resolved the double redirects that you have sometimes left around (I had to fix a few of them). — Verdy_p ^(talk) 22:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will keep previous title of page in {{languages}} template. Double redirects can resolved using Special:DoubleRedirects. They are easier to spot at special page than manually checking page for what links here. Mostly I was looking for doubleR in English namespace

I replied about difference delete/delete proposal at my talk page User_talk:Xxzme#Mass_category_changes, you are confusing delete with delete proposal Wiki_organisation#Labels.

I'm firmly convinced that I am not confusing a deletion and a deletion proposal, but yes this has the same impact on users if they complain. — Verdy_p ^(talk) 06:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I replied about Czech Documentation at their talk page Category talk:Czech Documentation. Xxzme (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've finished sorting the existing languages in category:Documentation. Even if this category is empty for English, it does not mean that it has to be deleted as long as translations are not also individually recategorized.

In summary I maintain what I said you: do not even propose to delete a category that has an evident usage and for which there's no clear indication about how to recategorize its contents (it is important for existing translations that require more work during cleanup). And this requires work for looking for all existing usages and to make sure that no links will become broken (because you have broken several of them, notably in interlanguage nav bars going NOWHERE in the English pages that you have renamed without caution and for which you MUST preserve the old name in the Languages tempalte parameter, as long as all other existing translations are not also renamed (and without double redirects left).

So I have removed the delete notice in those translations, but kept their cleanup notice. — Verdy_p ^(talk) 06:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"do not even propose to delete a category that has an evident usage and for which there's no clear indication about how to recategorize its contents" Well it should be stated in Wiki_organisation#Labels to avoid further confusion. Previously process wasn't described precisely or reasons why it should be done this way and not another. Xxzme (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's true that there's absolutely no description for how to place this banner in pages. But this banner requires first creating a discussion describing what you want to do, how to migrate the content: if the content was really to delete immediately, it would be a delete request for contents that are no longer linked, erroneous, unused, or that is no longer applicable at all without creating errors.

But historic pages still need to be kept in some archive category, not deleted (it is frequent that some part of them may be reused, or that we need to refer to it to understand past decisions, or somtimes to revert to the old version. Even projects that may seem defunct may be revived later by someone else. In an open community, any project does not really belong only to its initial creator. Sometimes it is also useful to keep these old content to remember past errors that have been made, or demonstrate the consequences of former bad or poor practices (that caused lots of maintenance work). — Verdy_p ^(talk) 16:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"or demonstrate the consequences of former bad or poor practices" Well yes, this is good point but we shouldn't point regular readers to this structure (it should be hidden/invisible in Category:Categories at least). FAQ is another good example. It was initially created very quickly, but later it was unmaintainable page, hard to navigate or edit for everyone. here you have help.openstreetmap.org. Second close is Map features. But worse in this that FAQ editors weren't porting changes to translated versions (and sometimes it was impossible to guess what text mean what). Xxzme (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The FAQ category is a good example of something you may not like, but that many users will expect. May be some FAQs are insufficiently focused on a topic, but many FAQs are useful and their form is not compatible with other topics or project pages: they are used to answer more difficult questions on a topic that give tricky details that are hard to sort even if they are about some well focused topic.

When you say that FAQs were not maintained, this is wrong, and for many languages it is an essential type of page (even if it is quite long to translate, the existing translations are even more valuable).

In summary, there's no reason to delete the FAQ category, even if some works are needed to sort FAQs that are too long and insufficiently focused. Typically a FAQ on this wiki should not exceed more than about a dozen of questions (if needed try to organize them and create sub-FAQs: nothing prevents a general article on a topic to reference several short FAQs which will be easier to translate by concentrating efforts first on the most important questions). FAQs can deliver a lot of useful links to other pages, including solutions for some kinds of problems, or locating issues with the tagging of some eaographic features, or locating projects, contacts, and various other categories. Making shorter FAQs will make them more accessible and easier to select and read more carefully. — Verdy_p ^(talk) 07:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't want FAQ page at all. We have Main page and Category:Portals and Where to get help? - they should be used as starting point, not FAQ.

Common question should be explained in various guides and respective projects.

All of the "questions" are just due insufficient "See also" sections and poor/outdated cross-links. After reading page on some specific topic user shoudn't be pointed to yet another faq page, but other meaningful pages and cats (portals, guides). Xxzme (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)