An orphaned page with no inbound links — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
What changes if the standard account of orphaned page is wrong? I ask because I have been treating it as settled and I noticed this week that I could not say why.
Working through the consequences rather than the evidence, since others here are better placed on the evidence.
The opening post is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Adding the boring version of orphaned page, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.
Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.
The opening post describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Fair — and in this case it can, because it contains a number. So: one owner, two links.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
Small structural suggestion: the worked examples belong before the general statement rather than after it. Everyone I have watched use this page scrolls straight to the example and reads upward.
I would treat the number as indicative rather than as a measurement.
Post #3 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
I keep a log for orphaned page specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.
Appreciated. The plain phrasing does more work here than a longer post would.
Authority: if you think a page needs input from someone with specific expertise, suggesting that person helps the maintainer recruit contributors.
I have deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the argument starts.
Practical note on orphaned page: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.
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.
That matches what I was told, which is not the same as knowing it.
Agreed and changed to six-monthly. The mechanism is deliberately dull: a page nobody reads can wait, a page everybody reads cannot, and read counts are the only input to that decision.
A weak preference rather than a position.
This follows post #8 rather than contradicting it.
Requesting a review date change rather than a content change. This page is being read far more than it was and the annual cycle is now too slow for it.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
The thing about orphaned page that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
Maintainer handovers: if a page's maintainer is inactive and needs a new one, discussing that here can facilitate the transition.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
On post #14 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Flagging a stale cross-reference. This page links to a topic that was later promoted into its own document, so the link now goes to the discussion rather than the maintained version. Worth repointing.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
Orphaned page: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.
Post #18 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Maintenance note. This document is due for review and the maintainer has asked for a second reader before the date rather than after it. If you use this page regularly, this is the moment your objection is cheapest to act on.
The reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
The practical version of orphaned page is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
Post #19 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
On orphaned page the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.
Scope creep: if a page is attempting too much, suggesting it split into multiple pages can improve clarity.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
Careful with the language on orphaned page. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
Answering the question post #23 raises rather than the one it answers.
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.
The arithmetic in post #27 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Evidence synthesis: if you think a page should cover recent evidence or a new development, suggesting specific content helps the maintainer prioritise updates.
Coming back to post #27, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Authority: if you think a page needs input from someone with specific expertise, suggesting that person helps the maintainer recruit contributors.
Maintenance note. This document is due for review and the maintainer has asked for a second reader before the date rather than after it. If you use this page regularly, this is the moment your objection is cheapest to act on.