@AdamLear is there / will there be "auto-resolve" for topic links in posts? On Q&A if I post a link to a Q in a post then it is replaced with the title instead of me having to do [title] (link)
@user1803551 I actually have an addition to the "insert link" dialog that I'm gonna turn on tomorrow that allows searching within docs. But the auto-resolve is a solid idea too. Not really feasible the way things work right now till we have docs exposed through the API somehow, though (or have a private API available), but definitely something I'd want to add in.
@user1803551 I will be first to admit, I've not been following closely, but why are we planning to delete all the basic Java stuff? I thought that Documentation was supposed to be all documentation for a language, even if it is just duplicating existing Javadoc's
@user1803551 I think you've gone way overboard on the notion of "not duplicating what's available on other sites". What you're proposing would be like deleting any question where googling the question title produces a relevant page in the first page of results.
@DanHulme "way overboard" is an extremely strong accusation considering the development teams responses yo my previous question and to jim garrison's question.
2
i suggest you re-read the links i gave in the top of my question and write an informed answer, bearing in mind their guidelines
I'm not accusing you of anything. We're all just trying to do our best here. I just think that proposing to delete more than half of the site's content is quite a big and discouraging action to take. You say in your post that you're worried about the example set by the present topics, but have you considered what kind of example deleting everyone's contributions would make?
> If you think something needs to be added to Documentation (because it's "highly complex, confusing, and under-documented" for example) then you should create it, or request it.
@DanHulme Yes, which is why i did not ask them to be deleted, in fact, i specifically said they shouldn't be deleted yet. If you really want to bring a contrary position to the one i state in my question, why won't you write an answer showing how the topics i suggest to delete in the future fit in the direction given by the developers?
@DanHulme And to this - I myself proposed and created 2 topics exacly for the reason you quoted. i don't see how this fits the discussion at all
@DanHulme if you read the previous posts, you'd see that a lot of what you think is a hard work is actually a copy-paste. Did you see the swing animation example? it's plagiarized (though i don't know if Gilbert would mind it himself). I actually suggested to keep the topic because i find it fitting. you see, i don't suggest to delete everyone's contribution for any reason i find
i don't see my post being hostile. it's a list showing, according to my personal understanding, what topics fit with the developers' direction and which don't. the intent of the post is to avoid stagnation with the limited users we have. all of this is explicitly and clearly stated in the question, no?
i pinged adam lear to review it in case i didn't understand what is thought of as "on-topic" on the site. i'm not making decisions
@user1803551 Well, at least one person interpreted it as "we are planning to delete all the basic Java stuff" (see above). I'm not sure there's another way to interpret writing a list of topics with "delete" against most of them.
@user1803551 we decided to add that for links to Docs for discovery purposes, although I suppose it does make less sense for raw links. And I also forgot the feature flags in a couple spots that are hiding that feature. :) Fixed that, but it'll be a moot point shortly on the beta site anyway.
