This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made, discussing it here invites resolution rather than conflict.
Picking up post #60: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
Cross-referencing: if two pages should reference each other but do not, suggesting the cross-reference helps the maintainer see the connection.
Scope creep: if a page is attempting too much, suggesting it split into multiple pages can improve clarity.
This follows post #64 rather than contradicting it.
Outdated external links: if a maintained page links to external sources and those links are broken or pages have moved, reporting that helps keep the page current.
I read post #66 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
post #68 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Authority: if you think a page needs input from someone with specific expertise, suggesting that person helps the maintainer recruit contributors.
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.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Worth separating two things that post #69 runs together.
Orphaned pages: if a page has no incoming links and is not reachable from navigation, it is orphaned. Such pages should either be linked or deprecated.
Coming back to post #73, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
Redundancy: if two maintained pages cover largely the same ground, consolidation might improve clarity. Pointing out redundancy helps maintainers see the issue.
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.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Process question about how this site works. I have…
|
+45 | 50 | 33k | 20mo |
|
Pages past their review date, listed — does this still hold?
Pages past their review date, listed — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation…
|
+27 | 31 | 52k | 15mo |
|
A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history
A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation…
|
+11 | 15 | 40k | 16h |
|
Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed
On the subject in the title: Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed Working notes rather than a conclusion. Process question about how this site works. I have read the…
|
+92 | 101 | 2.9k | 2mo |
|
About the Wiki maintenance category
Review dates, orphaned pages, maintainer handovers, and revision disputes. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its author and a…
|
4 | 42k | 15mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Request: a per-category review queue
Request: a per-category review queue Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in question…
|
+125 | 136 | 13k | 2h |
|
Request: show the solution author in the topic list
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Request: show the solution author in the topic list Everything below is what sits behind that. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons.…
|
2 | 2.4k | 10mo | |
|
Follow-up: A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims
A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A logistics question, since the answers here are usually better than…
|
+74 | 82 | 2.8k | 6mo |
|
A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history
A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation…
|
+11 | 15 | 40k | 16h |
|
Revisiting: Mobile reading experience on long topics
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: Mobile reading experience on long topics Everything below is what sits behind that. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons.…
|
+11 | 15 | 34k | 10h |