On this page, http://drupal.org/node/51169#skill-level, there is a link to http://drupal.org/node/22963 within the following text marked with [].

Consider reading the relevant portions of the handbook page with [common uses of Drupal and required skills].

However, the linked page ( http://drupal.org/node/22963) is not accessible by users. Either the node has to be accessible or the link has to be removed. I would prefer the former, rather than the latter.

Thanks,
neokrish

Comments

arianek’s picture

arianek commented
Status: Active » Needs review
Issue tags: +drupal.org content audit

I've commented out the line in question, and am tagging this with content audit so lisarex can review (Lisa - looks like you probably archived it to begin with?) I'm on the fence as to whether the page should be resurrected.

Thanks!

leehunter’s picture

leehunter commented
Status: Needs review » Fixed

Looks like this has been addressed. Marking as fixed.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.

neokrish’s picture

neokrish commented
Status: Closed (fixed) » Needs review

Link to the missing page was removed by arianek in #1. However, should the unpublished page be left as such? Shouldn't it we publish it again after making necessary corrections in it? The unpublished page is about 'common uses of Drupal and required skills'

matthews’s picture

matthews commented

What's wrong with this page? It might be a little old, but scanning it it seems still valid. What was the reasoning in setting it to deprecated? What are the community standards for setting a page to deprecated other than the most obvious - very old documentation.

leehunter’s picture

leehunter commented

Sometimes a page can be archived when the content duplicates other pages (although I'm not sure if that's the case here).

MGParisi’s picture

MGParisi commented

I agree with Arianek's decision to depreciate this, but probably not for the reasons she did. This is simply out of scope of Drupal and coming from a business background, this is nice advice, but it really requires allot more advice then given here.

I can be sold the other way,

matthews’s picture

matthews commented

@MGParisi out of scope because it has a more business focus? I do agree, the page could be fattened out considerably to be more useful. Still, not sure that deprecation is quite right.

leehunter’s picture

leehunter commented
Status: Needs review » Closed (fixed)

Page should remain archived since it is essentially a dupe of https://drupal.org/node/346217