Taking post #3 at face value and following it one step further. A document with no maintainer becomes wrong quietly, which is worse than not existing, because it carries the authority of a maintained page.
Splitting an overlong document into two — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
Collecting what is known about Splitting an overlong document in one place, because it is currently spread across a category, two tag pages and a thread that is hard to find.
This is a summary rather than new work, and I have attributed each part to where I found it.
Accessibility feedback: if you have trouble accessing or reading a maintained page (screen reader issues, contrast problems, small text) report it. Accessibility matters.
Everything in post #3 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
What I can speak to on Splitting an overlong document is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know.
Say what would make the page wrong. A page whose failure conditions are stated is much easier to review honestly.
I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.
Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.
This follows post #8 rather than contradicting it.
Correction requests: if you spot an error in a maintained page, note it here with the specific correction. The maintainer will review and update if justified.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
Two sentences on Splitting an overlong document and then I will stop, because the rest is speculation and the thread is better without mine.
What is documented is narrow. What is inferred from it is broad. The gap between them is where every argument here lives.
Practical experience of Splitting an overlong document, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.
Where an existing document nearly covers it, extending that one is usually better than starting a new one. Two overlapping pages drift apart.
That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close.
No notes. Posting so the count is not one.
Everything in post #14 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
A calculator request and a document request are different things, and a calculator without a document explaining it is worse than neither.
Whatever the answer on Splitting an overlong document turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.
Post #18 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.
Suggesting content for a page: if you know a maintained page is missing something important, post a suggestion with specific content you think should be added.
Cross-referencing: if you notice two pages that should reference each other but do not, suggest the cross-reference.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
Adding the measurement that post #23 says would settle it.
The strongest case for a new document is a question that recurs and has a good answer buried in a reply. That is the promotion criterion as written.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
On post #23 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Splitting an overlong document sits at the boundary between what this community can usefully discuss and what it cannot, and I think it falls on the discussable side, narrowly.