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.

Process question about how this site works.

I have read the guidelines and the trust-level page and I still have a question about the mechanism rather than the rule. Specifically, I would like to understand the reasoning behind it, because I suspect the reasoning is better than the rule sounds.

Not a complaint. If the answer is "because of a failure mode you have not seen yet", I would like to hear about the failure mode.

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.

I read the opening post 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.

Authority: if you think a page needs input from someone with specific expertise, suggesting that person helps the maintainer recruit contributors.

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.

Picking up post #4: that is the part I would want checked first.

Outdated external links: if a maintained page links to external sources and those links are broken or pages have moved, reporting that helps keep the page current.

Coming back to post #6, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

post #8 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

Worth separating two things that post #6 runs together.

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

This follows post #9 rather than contradicting it.

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.