I'm not opposed. It is just work that somebody has to find the time to do. It would be easier if such a notice was appropriate for all articles over two years old. Unfortunately, there are many other kinds of articles for which such a notice would seem out of place. So step one would be to go through all the articles and categorize them a little better.

Perhaps there should be a general notification on the Fedora Magazine landing page that cautions readers to consider the age and technology referenced in the articles and the applicability to their current configuration. It might point out that some articles may only be of historical interest.

(More thought and wordsmithing required.)

I think the problem with that is that people don't necessarily see the landing page when they are coming from search engines. Also, I want to avoid too much preamble on the main page before the reader gets to "the good stuff". I'm worried it might turn new readers off before they even get to the actual articles.

Just my 2¢.

That's fair.

I've ran into this myself a fair bit when I started to use Linux. Nothing more dangerous then googling 'fixing audio on Linux' and getting a Pulse Audio tutorial from 2013.

As for the human labour, perhaps it can be automated for FAQ articles and Guides? I agree that it would be out of place with formal announcements and such. I mean, technically the Privacy Statement is also a 'page' and it shouldn't appear there.

I'm definitely all for some sort of automated system. Unfortunately, there are probably a lot of articles that aren't properly categorized. I don't think "proper categorization" has ever been emphasized as an important thing for editors to check and the default category is just "project community". ...

Actually, WOW! I just took a glance at the categories and it looks like someone has started fixing the categories. Kudos to someone!

There are still 884 articles in the default category that should probably be gone through, but that might be "doable" if someone has enough time and patience to do that.

Also, there might be "FAQs" that are essentially valid forever. Those aren't necessarily tied to anything technical or version-specific.

So I guess the 73-article "FAQs and Guides" category should be gone through and split up into separate categories. Then anything that is a "guide" in the "project community" category should be refiled under the "Guides" category. Then I think we might have 95% of the guides properly categorized and looking into an automated system might be doable. We'd also have to make sure there is some explanation about the side-effect of putting articles under the "Guides" category in the documentation and make sure it is emphasized that editors should make sure things are properly categorized. I guess it might be doable, but it is still a lot of work.

Edit: Ah, I see what's going on. I was thinking of the "tags" when I looked at the "categories". It's the tags that are (still) a big mess. Maybe the categories were never that bad. But still, there is a lot that would have to be done. I see, for example, that there are 433 articles under "Using Software" that, for the most part, are also "Guides". I think we would need to completely restructure the categories before an automated system would work.