[2026 update] Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed posts 31–46

Picking up post #28: that is the part I would want checked first.

Cross-referencing: if two pages should reference each other but do not, suggesting the cross-reference helps the maintainer see the connection.

Coming back to post #30, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Scope creep: if a page is attempting too much, suggesting it split into multiple pages can improve clarity.

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.

Maintainer handovers: if a page's maintainer is inactive and needs a new one, discussing that here can facilitate the transition.

Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made, discussing it here invites resolution rather than conflict.

I read post #34 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Redundancy: if two maintained pages cover largely the same ground, consolidation might improve clarity. Pointing out redundancy helps maintainers see the issue.

post #36 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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.

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

Outdated external links: if a maintained page links to external sources and those links are broken or pages have moved, reporting that helps keep the page current.

Evidence synthesis: if you think a page should cover recent evidence or a new development, suggesting specific content helps the maintainer prioritise updates.

I read post #39 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Redundancy: if two maintained pages cover largely the same ground, consolidation might improve clarity. Pointing out redundancy helps maintainers see the issue.

This follows post #39 rather than contradicting it.

Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made, discussing it here invites resolution rather than conflict.

Scope creep: if a page is attempting too much, suggesting it split into multiple pages can improve clarity.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.