FamilySearch Wiki talk:Maintenance

Adding to maintenance page
It would be nice to have all the possible maintenance work centered on this page. There are a number of tasks that are on the Special page so here I will be adding other required tasks and trying to organize them to fold them into the main Maintenance page. Here they are organized by high-priority to low priority, depending on whether or not the reports actually show a problem or are just good to look at every once in a while.


 * Dead-end pages
 * Orphaned pages
 * Wanted files
 * Wanted pages
 * Wanted templates
 * Patrolling


 * Duplicate files
 * Protected pages
 * Long pages


 * Unused templates :*Unused categories
 * Unused files
 * Oldest pages
 * Pages with the fewest revisions
 * Pages without language links
 * Protected titles

Is the main page better organized by topic as it now is or by priority? Not sure, just thinking. If we organize by topic, the above will have to be folded into the main page. Also, some of these are admin only functions. How do we set those apart so that everyone knows who can and can't work on them? janellv 05:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you make a good point about the other special page maintenance reports. I have created specialpageslist grouping the based on reports based on your three priority lists. This can of course be altered if needed. My personal opinion is that the FamilySearch Wiki:Maintenance article is kept to tasks that can be done by all users and that tasks that can only be done by users with certain roles/rights be detailed on the pages (or sub-pages) about those roles (ie FamilySearch Wiki:Moderator or FamilySearch Wiki:Administrators). --Steve 11:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for jumping in on this! I'll review it in more depth, hopefully today. I think it would be nice to integrate it into what's already there rather than have 2 separate lists. Maybe we can put a high/med/low after each of the names to explain what each could be categorized as? The maintenance tasks that are already on the main list can be prioritized as well. I'm not sure if I've got the prioritization right or not, your input there would be great.
 * Question - is there any way to be able to show the # of pages in the special pages report? The way you list those in a specific category? I assume there's not or you would have added them but it would sure be nice if there was a way....
 * Also, I would love to have all maintenance tasks here on this page, but maybe find a way to set those apart that are for admins only - that way people have just one place to go for all maintenance work. Would there be a problem with that? janellv 15:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In trying to categorize the main page, they're not breaking cleanly into categories high/med/low. Maybe we should prioritize 1-5...? janellv 15:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Other Tasks:
We need certain pieces of information in order to perform each maintenance task. What's the best way to organize these pieces of information for those helping, and can they all fit on one page:


 * What the problem is
 * How to fix it
 * How it's reported
 * The policies relating to the topic
 * what else is important to know???

janellv 22:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)  (plus ongoing editing....)

Organizational thoughts - Currently when you click on a Type, you get the policies relating to that section. I wonder if in the Maintenance "area" (each page with the "Maintenance" table on it, plus the reports themselves) it could relate specifically to why these are problems and be more direct about how to clean them up. For example, on each main Type page, each task could have a small section where there would be one link out to the policies/help pages and another link out to the report itself that would include how to fix the issue and how to report the problem. Thoughts?

This would require some restructuring, the main problem being the special pages since I'm not sure how difficult it would be to put actual instructions on those pages. But it would be nice if the sections mirrored each other and were a little more direct.

janellv 05:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)