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?

I have spent a fortnight trying to pin Pages past down and I want to set out where I have got to, because I suspect the honest answer is duller than the thread this will produce.

What I have: a consistent observation across a small number of cases, collected the same way each time. What I do not have: any controlled comparison, or any reason to think my cases are representative.

The specific question is whether the pattern survives once the obvious confounder is removed. I cannot remove it with what I have.

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.

I keep a log of this specifically because memory is unreliable about it.

Narrowing post #2, because the general version has more than one answer.

Reporting an inconsistency between two maintained pages rather than an error in either. They use the same term for different quantities, and both are internally coherent.

Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.

My understanding of Pages past is a few years old and may have been superseded. If it has been, I would genuinely like to know rather than keep repeating it.

Post #5 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

An observation about Pages past that I cannot explain and am posting anyway, on the principle that unexplained observations are more useful public than private.

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 seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.

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.

Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.

Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.

Where I part company with post #8, and it is a narrow parting.

That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.

Post #7 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

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.

The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.

Adding the measurement that post #11 says would settle it.

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.

The step people skip is the one I have spelled out.

That is the most useful kind of report and the hardest to notice. Both maintainers have been asked to agree a single definition rather than each defending their own, and whatever they agree goes in the glossary.

That is all I can say without guessing.

I came in to disagree and I am leaving without a disagreement.