Pages past their review date, listed — does this still hold? posts 31–57
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
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.
Post #29 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
Building on post #33 rather than restating 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 rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register.
Where I part company with post #33, and it is a narrow parting.
Where I would push back on the Pages past consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
Small methodological point on Pages past: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
Coming back to post #37, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Cross-referencing: if two pages should reference each other but do not, suggesting the cross-reference helps the maintainer see the connection.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Post #37 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
That matches what I was told, which is not the same as knowing it.
Marking my place. If it changes for me I will come back and say so.
On post #41 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.
I have three months of notes on Pages past 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.
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.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
Reframing Pages past slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
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.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
A methods point on Pages past rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.
Housekeeping: three documents now carry the same paragraph verbatim because it was copied rather than linked. One of them should hold it and the other two should point at it.
I have deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the argument starts.
This follows post #51 rather than contradicting it.
Redundancy: if two maintained pages cover largely the same ground, consolidation might improve clarity. Pointing out redundancy helps maintainers see the issue.
I have no interest in any supplier named above.
Taking Pages past seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.
Thank you for the correction. I would rather find out here than later.
On post #55 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
This topic was referenced in
- Pages past their review date, listedMeta › Wiki maintenance · 30 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
An orphaned page with no inbound links
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…
|
+44 | 48 | 7.5k | 14mo |
|
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 |
|
Pages past their review date, listed
Pages past their review date, listed Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a small dataset on pages past. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and the method is…
|
+26 | 30 | 6.4k | 10mo |
|
An orphaned page with no inbound links — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: An orphaned page with no inbound links — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. A narrow question about orphaned page, deliberately narrow,…
|
+14 | 18 | 21k | 10mo |
|
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 |
Related topics — sharing the tags review date, moderation, maintainership
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 |
|
Mobile reading experience on long topics
Mobile reading experience on long topics Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Process question, and I have read the guidelines before asking. I understand the…
|
2 | 14k | 4h | |
|
Pages past their review date, listed
Pages past their review date, listed Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a small dataset on pages past. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and the method is…
|
+26 | 30 | 6.4k | 10mo |
|
A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset
A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset 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…
|
+89 | 98 | 31k | 11mo |
|
Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked? I would like to know what people here actually do about review cadence, as distinct from…
|
+20 | 24 | 20k | 15mo |