> On Jun 16, 2026, at 2:35 PM, Philippe Cloutier <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I may misunderstand what you are proposing, but I am skeptical about your > proposal. To make an analogy with Wikipedia, it has countless outdated pages, > and countless current pages, but pages in the first group have nothing > logical in common, besides getting insufficient love. The English Wikipedia > only (tries to) group outdated pages in a category to track pages which need > work: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_obsolete_information > > I fail to see how httpd webpages could be split. What I agree would be a good > idea would be to add warnings on outdated content. Wikipedia templates allow > doing it at the article section level, as in the following case: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Civil_Aviation_Organization#Environment > Template:Update also allows specifying a date, quantifying how bad the > problem is.
Yes, you appear to be misunderstanding, and the wikipedia analogy is not apropos. Historical content is not outdated, it’s a historical record. > > Or are you saying there is content which you consider "historical", in the > sense that it *should not* be updated? Perhaps examples of what you suggest > qualifying as historical would clarify. We’re discussing one. The list of contributors to the project is not *outdated*. It’s a historical record. It is still true and relevant, in that it gives credit to those who came before us.
