Topic summary

Reverting an edit that had no revision note

Meta › Wiki maintenance citation check moderation review date maintainership wiki post

This is a generated summary. It shows the 5 most-liked posts from a topic of 22, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.

a.molnarTL213 May 2025#4

g.pemberton_uk, post #1: Posting this under the heading it deserves: Reverting an edit that had no revision note Everything below is what sits behind that. Reverting an edit: setting out the arithmetic in full, because I have had to do it twice and I would rather nobody else did. Every step is shown. If the answer is wrong the error will be visible, which is… Go to post

Reverting an edit is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.

25 likes in reply to #1 15mo

DKwiatkowskiTL3Regular29 May 2025#7

Fine by me. I had wanted a stronger conclusion and there is not one available.

17 likes 14mo

ZieglerTL3Regular1 Jul 2025#14

Agreed. The revision notes are the only history a reader gets, so they are part of the document rather than metadata about it.

That is the honest state of it as of this week.

21 likes 13mo

k.vanheckeTL221 Jul 2025#19

a.villalobos, post #2: Last maintenance note: the limitations section is the part most likely to be skipped and the part most likely to matter. It belongs above the examples, not at the bottom under a heading people scroll past. Go to post

Proposing an edit rather than making one, because it changes a number. The figure in the third paragraph is right for the licensed formulation and is being read as general. I would add four words scoping it.

A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.

14 likes in reply to #2 12mo

n.vukovicTL229 Jul 2025#21

Edit made and noted: replaced an approximate figure with the published one and cited it. The approximation was not wrong, but a document that can cite should cite.

I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.

25 likes 12mo

Read the full topic (22 posts)

This topic was referenced in

A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the historyMeta › Wiki maintenance · 15 replies

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Pages past their review date, listed — does this still hold? Meta › Wiki maintenance review date moderation maintainership wiki post 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…	+49	56	39k	11d
An orphaned page with no inbound links Meta › Wiki maintenance wiki post maintainership citation check moderation 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
An orphaned page with no inbound links — the long version Meta › Wiki maintenance review date wiki post citation check 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
About the Wiki maintenance category Meta › Wiki maintenance wiki post review date maintainership Pinned Wiki 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
Revisiting: Maintainer handover: how it works Meta › Wiki maintenance maintainership review date wiki post moderation Solved Revisiting: Maintainer handover: how it works Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Maintainer handover keeps being re-asked here and I think that is because the…	+53	57	664	4mo

Related topics — sharing the tags citation check, moderation, review date

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Tag proliferation and whether we should prune — what changed since Meta › Site feedback site feedback guidelines moderation Tag proliferation and whether we should prune — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. What changes if the standard account of Tag proliferation is wrong? I…	+5	9	709	5mo
Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version Documentation › Doc review promoted to docs maintainership citation check wiki post On the subject in the title: Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A narrow question about Promotion criteria, deliberately…	+130	143	7.2k	6mo
A friction point in the promotion workflow — the long version Meta › Site feedback moderation site feedback guidelines On the subject in the title: A friction point in the promotion workflow — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A narrow question about friction point, deliberately narrow, because the…	+1	5	46k	13mo
Revisiting: Maintainer handover: how it works Meta › Wiki maintenance maintainership review date wiki post moderation Solved Revisiting: Maintainer handover: how it works Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Maintainer handover keeps being re-asked here and I think that is because the…	+53	57	664	4mo
Guidelines revision: what changed and why — does this still hold? Meta › Announcements trust levels site feedback guidelines moderation Guidelines revision: what changed and why — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. I was wrong about Guidelines revision in a thread…		2	58k	7mo