Closed (won't fix)
Project:
Documentation
Component:
Other documentation issues
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Feature request
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
5 Oct 2008 at 12:31 UTC
Updated:
19 Jan 2009 at 03:52 UTC
We link a lot to different pages internally and externally. What do you guys think of adding a new component: "Broken link"? IMO, the Correction/Clarification component can be concentrated to correction and clarification of content.
cheers,
John
----------------------
Drupal Norge
hvor oversettere, brukere, utviklere og leverandører av Drupal i Norge samles
Comments
Comment #1
Wolfflow commentedHi @JohnNoc, I have somehow understand your suggestion, could you please add some explanations on where and what we will be using the "Broken Link?" flag. Maybe my question is really naive but would help me to understand better. Thanks
Comment #2
johnnocHere is a scenario.
A user is viewing a handbook page then clicked on a link. Ooops! Page not found. The user then decides to submit an issue to the Documentation project queue. Issue settings: Project? Documentation, yup that's appropriate. Component? Hmm... Should it be under "correction/clarification" or "outdated"?
IMO, the docs team will have a better overview of the issue components if "correction/clarification" and "outdated" are specific to to the content. It will also lessen the confusion of some users in submitting an issue if it is just a broken link, especially the NNEs.
So my proposal is...
Issue settings:
Project: Documentation
Component: Broken links
Cheers,
John
Comment #3
Wolfflow commented+1 Yes, very good feedback. Thanks.
Comment #4
alexanderpas commentedcurrently, broken link is under webmasters, however, it would be good to add it for documentation too.
Comment #5
leehunter commentedExpanded title a bit for clarity
Comment #6
add1sun commentedHm, I'd actually like to avoid adding more components. Now that people can edit the handbook pages, they can fix most broken links themselves. I'm not sure that we really need a whole component for this.
Comment #7
johnnocI started this issue before we opened editing rights. With what we have today, I would have not suggested this :-)
Since I am the one who made this feature request, and I don't want it anymore... "wont fix"