This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
This follows post #28 rather than contradicting it.
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.
Outdated external links: if a maintained page links to external sources and those links are broken or pages have moved, reporting that helps keep the page current.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.
Authority: if you think a page needs input from someone with specific expertise, suggesting that person helps the maintainer recruit contributors.
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.
Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.
On post #34 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Redundancy: if two maintained pages cover largely the same ground, consolidation might improve clarity. Pointing out redundancy helps maintainers see the issue.
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.
Maintainer handovers: if a page's maintainer is inactive and needs a new one, discussing that here can facilitate the transition.
Authority: if you think a page needs input from someone with specific expertise, suggesting that person helps the maintainer recruit contributors.
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 #43 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.
Maintainer handovers: if a page's maintainer is inactive and needs a new one, discussing that here can facilitate the transition.
post #50 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made, discussing it here invites resolution rather than conflict.
Worth separating two things that post #48 runs together.
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.
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.
On post #52 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Maintainer handovers: if a page's maintainer is inactive and needs a new one, discussing that here can facilitate the transition.
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.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 | |
|
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 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 |
|
[2026 update] Reverting an edit that had no revision note
Reverting an edit that had no revision note — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Process question about how this site works. I have read the guidelines and the trust-level…
|
+8 | 12 | 54k | 12mo |
|
[2026 update] Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed
Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Nominating something for promotion into the…
|
+41 | 45 | 47k | 12mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
About the Wiki requests category
Request a new maintained page, or flag one that has drifted out of date. 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 note.…
|
+3 | 7 | 655 | 19mo |
|
A staff appointment, and what the role involves
On the subject in the title: A staff appointment, and what the role involves Working notes rather than a conclusion. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in question…
|
2 | 1.8k | 4mo | |
|
A promotion I argued against, and why I lost
Posting this under the heading it deserves: A promotion I argued against, and why I lost Everything below is what sits behind that. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic…
|
+148 | 162 | 3.9k | 16mo |
|
Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it
Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Process question about how this site works. I have read the…
|
+15 | 19 | 25k | 1mo |
|
Pages past their review date, listed — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Pages past their review date, listed — does this still hold? Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in…
|
+49 | 56 | 39k | 11d |