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, because the broad version has been asked here four times and produced four long threads and no answer.
One question, stated units, stated method, and what I have already ruled out.
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.
That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.
Authority: if you think a page needs input from someone with specific expertise, suggesting that person helps the maintainer recruit contributors.
Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.
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 be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
Post #6 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
Picking up post #8: that is the part I would want checked first.
Evidence synthesis: if you think a page should cover recent evidence or a new development, suggesting specific content helps the maintainer prioritise updates.
The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests.
On post #6 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
On post #9 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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 disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
Agreed on orphaned page, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.
Reading rather than answering, but this is the post I would point somebody at.
Post #13 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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 matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
Caveat: everything above assumes the paperwork is what it says it is.
Confirming post #17 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Fair — and in this case it can, because it contains a number. So: one owner, two links.
That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.
Understood. Thank you for being specific about the limits of it.
| 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 |
|
Reverting an edit that had no revision note
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…
|
+17 | 21 | 4.5k | 12mo |
|
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 |
|
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…
|
+49 | 56 | 39k | 11d |
|
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 |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Requesting a page: what makes a good request
Requesting a page: what makes a good request Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Trying to work out what would count as evidence on requesting a page, before…
|
+65 | 71 | 9.3k | 15mo |
|
Coming back to: Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it Everything below is what sits behind that. Recording a dissent, and specifically the version of it that…
|
+43 | 47 | 11k | 16mo |
|
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 |
|
A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer
On the subject in the title: A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer Working notes rather than a conclusion. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in…
|
+95 | 104 | 1.2k | 14mo |
|
Maintainer handover: how it works
On the subject in the title: Maintainer handover: how it works Working notes rather than a conclusion. I would like to disagree carefully with the settled view on maintainer handover, and I would like to be…
|
+74 | 82 | 14k | 16mo |