An orphaned page with no inbound links

An orphaned page with no inbound links — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons.

The topic in question keeps being re-asked, has a good marked solution, and contains a worked example that would be more useful on a page with a review date than buried in a reply. That is exactly the promotion criterion as written.

Objections welcome and genuinely wanted — the whole point of discussing promotions in public is that a bad promotion is harder to undo than a bad reply.

This follows the opening post rather than contradicting it.

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.

Review dates: each maintained page has a review date (the date by which it should be checked). If a page is past its review date, flagging it here alerts the maintainer.

Authority: if you think a page needs input from someone with specific expertise, suggesting that person helps the maintainer recruit contributors.

Coming back to post #3, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Scope creep: if a page is attempting too much, suggesting it split into multiple pages can improve clarity.

Picking up post #3: that is the part I would want checked first.

Cross-referencing: if two pages should reference each other but do not, suggesting the cross-reference helps the maintainer see the connection.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made, discussing it here invites resolution rather than conflict.

Redundancy: if two maintained pages cover largely the same ground, consolidation might improve clarity. Pointing out redundancy helps maintainers see the issue.

This follows post #8 rather than contradicting it.

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

Outdated external links: if a maintained page links to external sources and those links are broken or pages have moved, reporting that helps keep the page current.

Evidence synthesis: if you think a page should cover recent evidence or a new development, suggesting specific content helps the maintainer prioritise updates.

Redundancy: if two maintained pages cover largely the same ground, consolidation might improve clarity. Pointing out redundancy helps maintainers see the issue.