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. I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
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 on Pages past, and I would like to be argued out of it if the disagreement is bad.
The disagreement is about one step, not about the conclusion. If the step holds I withdraw it entirely.
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.
Building on the opening post rather than restating it.
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.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
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.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
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.
Counterpoint on Pages past, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.
Narrowing post #8, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
Caveat: everything above assumes the paperwork is what it says it is.
Cross-referencing: if two pages should reference each other but do not, suggesting the cross-reference helps the maintainer see the connection.
I am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude.
Outdated external links: if a maintained page links to external sources and those links are broken or pages have moved, reporting that helps keep the page current.
Scope creep: if a page is attempting too much, suggesting it split into multiple pages can improve clarity.
Worth separating two things that post #13 runs together.
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.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
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.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
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.
Post #17 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Pages past: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
Taking post #17 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
Flagging that the sources on this are thinner than the confidence in the thread suggests.
The arithmetic in post #18 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Redundancy: if two maintained pages cover largely the same ground, consolidation might improve clarity. Pointing out redundancy helps maintainers see the issue.
I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.
Answering the question post #20 raises rather than the one it answers.
A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for Pages past post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.
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.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual.
Post #25 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
Confirming post #26 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
Cross-referencing: if two pages should reference each other but do not, suggesting the cross-reference helps the maintainer see the connection.
I looked this up rather than remembered it, which is the right order.
Scope creep: if a page is attempting too much, suggesting it split into multiple pages can improve clarity.