Mark for robot exclusion?


I agree, but what I’m afraid of is that it doesn’t imply that there’s a new one, unlike with “old” or “former”. If people don’t click it in the first place, how will they know there’s a new wiki if they won’t get the message in the old wiki?

Perhaps excluding the old Wiki from indexing might be better? Just thinking out loud here.



Clearly indicates something has been replaced


I think we're close enough to consensus on a "good enough" solution that we should move forward and wrap this up.

I slightly prefer [PREVIOUS OpenWrt Wiki] (to [FORMER OpenWrt Wiki]) , but would accept either. Both convey the notion that "this used to be the correct information, but it's not any more." and allows the reader to look further down the search page for current info.

@tmomas - I like the second (of the three) "yellow boxes". Is this something you can do on your own without SSH access? (I know we can't get a live link to "", but readers of the old wiki can figure that out for themselves.)

Other points from my earlier note:

  • Change the name to "" (already requested - Is this complete?)
  • Change the oldwiki title to include [PREVIOUS OpenWrt Wiki] or some such phrase (Mostly decided - I say let @tmomas choose the final wording)
  • Add a "Historical" page to the current wiki that explains the state of the old wiki, and how to find it, and how to use its built-in search facility. (Done - )
  • Fix references to "" in the current wiki (there are a few dozen). This can happen over time.
  • Change robots.txt to exclude spidering (Perhaps we should change the <title> to include "PREVIOUS", then allow one more round of spidering before excluding spidering...)


My favourite is the third yellow box, because the live link to is more prominent here.
I'm afraid, this can only be done with ssh access to
If however the wiki subdomain is transfered to the current servers, then it's no problem. In fact, I already put that yellow box in the copy of the old wiki which resides on, i.e. once the subdomain is transfered, it will automatically show up.

I want to stress that this is really a live link (clickable) instead of simple text as with the current yellow box on

Thanks for the summary.

@wigyori @jow
We now have a plan, and the only thing that is hindering us in executing the plan is the missing support for the transfer of the wiki subdomain... :frowning:

How can we now move forward?

Google indexing issues

Sure, I guess sending me an e-mail always worked, I rarely check the forum. :slight_smile: First I can set up the full robot disallow to stop indexing the site, and then we can create the DNS records. I've set up the site alias now in the webserver.

One thing I'd like to avoid is to completely dump the "old" wiki, to have the old content lying around in case anyone is looking for missing or non-merged content on the old wiki.



Don't indiscriminately disallow robots please, it would prompt to drop all current and historical records of the site. It's better to specifically disallow Google.

I would like to repeat my suggestion to name it, in line with the already existing


What about disallowing all, but specifically allowing


@tmomas - what's your take on the naming? From my end, both are fine.



The parallel naming seems to have several attractive features including clarity and consistency


I'm undecided with a slight tendency towards oldwiki.


@tmomas @wigyori - what about "" ? For the sake of consistency I'd really like to move the wiki below the * domain.


Sounds good. Still easily recognised as a wiki, but "oldwiki" marks it ancient.


Same opinion as hannu. Make it so.


Fair enough. A robots.txt like this should do it:

User-Agent: *
Disallow: /

User-Agent: archive.org_bot
Allow: /

TBH, mostly I am just a bit overly careful about the content. Even though was not a particularly huge help in collecting the old forum content after its data loss, it helped enough with the layout and some minor aspects. I don't expect anything similar for the wiki, but who knows what's 10 or 20 years down the line. Historical records are important.


I like that idea, it's good for posterity.