This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.
Second-hand on maintainer handover, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.
Useful. I had the fact and not the reason, which turns out to be the important half.
Authority: if you think a page needs input from someone with specific expertise, suggesting that person helps the maintainer recruit contributors.
The bit of maintainer handover that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
The reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.
Taking post #64 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
That is the honest state of it as of this week.
Post #66 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
I have three months of notes on maintainer handover and the honest summary is that the trend is real and the week-to-week numbers are noise. I nearly drew the opposite conclusion from the first fortnight.
Confirming post #68 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Evidence synthesis: if you think a page should cover recent evidence or a new development, suggesting specific content helps the maintainer prioritise updates.
Volunteering for the review on this one. I use it monthly, I have a list of three things that have aged badly, and I am willing to be named as the second maintainer.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
I have no interest in any supplier named above.
Post #69 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
The question underneath maintainer handover is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
I have said this before in a thread nobody could find, so it is worth repeating.
Taking post #77 at face value and following it one step further.
On maintainer handover: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this 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.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
Appreciated. The plain phrasing does more work here than a longer post would.
Maintainer handovers: if a page's maintainer is inactive and needs a new one, discussing that here can facilitate the transition.
That is where I would start, not where I would stop.
On maintainer handover, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
| 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. Posting a small dataset on revision dispute…
|
+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. I would like to disagree carefully with the settled view…
|
+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. Proposing that revision dispute resolved deserves a…
|
+10 | 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. What changes if the standard account of citation sweep results is…
|
+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. Per-category review queue — I have the observation and I do not trust my interpretation…
|
+121 | 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. Process question, and I have read the guidelines before asking. I…
|
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 follow-up question about supplier that I did not know to ask the first…
|
+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. Proposing that revision dispute resolved deserves a…
|
+10 | 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. Bringing the figures rather than the impression, since a process…
|
+10 | 15 | 34k | 10h |