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 the point of writing it out rather than posting the result.
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.
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.
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.
Fine by me. I had wanted a stronger conclusion and there is not one available.
Everything in post #6 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Small methodological point on reverting an edit: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
The practical version of reverting an edit is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
The arithmetic in post #9 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
My understanding of reverting an edit is a few years old and may have been superseded.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.
Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made, discussing it here invites resolution rather than conflict.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
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.
The step people skip is the one I have spelled out.
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.
That much is documented. The rest is how I have interpreted it.
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.
I changed my mind about reverting an edit after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.
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.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
About the Wiki maintenance category
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
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 |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tag proliferation and whether we should prune — what changed since
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
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
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
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?
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 |