Flagging an article for archiving when the software is up-to-date, because of a lacking quality of information, seems odd to me. In this case I'd rather have a relevant section in List of applications where we can redirect the article to. -- Alad (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- There is no Move to User namespace template... I don't think that we need to create a section for Python web application frameworks. --Larivact (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the upstream docs are certainly the best place to send users, perhaps we could create a subsection of List of applications#Web servers for Category:Web frameworks, and maybe also something from Category:Web server (e.g. uWSGI is quite related)?
- In general I think it's a bit unfair and counterintuitive though that the better documentation a piece of software has (or the better it works in general), the lesser visibility (and search references) it gets in our wiki (the software runs fine out of the box (good!) => no need for installation/configuration/troubleshooting sections => no wiki article; the software needs distro-specific guidance to be set up (less good / bad) => need for installation/configuration/troubleshooting sections => wiki article allowed). This may also be related to Talk:List_of_applications#Radical_alternative, i.e. our Categories could link all current/popular options and point to the upstream docs, and possibly also to our articles for Arch-specific adaptations.
- -- Kynikos (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Related: Help talk:Template#Creation of Template:Out of scope.
- I've copied my post above to Talk:List_of_applications#Radical_alternative and moved this page under its author's, closed.
- -- Kynikos (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)