This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Post #60 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.
That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.
Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
Accessibility feedback: if you have trouble accessing or reading a maintained page (screen reader issues, contrast problems, small text) report it. Accessibility matters.
On post #62 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
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.
The honest answer is that it depends, and here is what it depends on.
That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.
Post #67 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Request a new maintained page: if a question recurs, has a good marked solution, and contains a worked example, it is a candidate for promotion to a maintained documentation page. Post your nomination in this subcategory with a link to the topic.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.
Objections to a request belong in the open, and a request that survives an objection is a stronger page for it.
Review cadence should be part of the proposal. A page about a fast-moving area needs a shorter cycle and somebody willing to honour it.
Post #69 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.
I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.
Confirming post #73 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Name a willing maintainer in the request. Point three of the criteria stops more nominations than the other three combined.
Post #76 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
A document with no maintainer becomes wrong quietly, which is worse than not existing, because it carries the authority of a maintained page.
For what it is worth, the same held on the two occasions I checked.
Scope the request narrowly. A page about one thing gets written and stays current; a page about a field does not.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
Narrowing post #78, because the general version has more than one answer.
The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
Everything in post #80 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
Translation suggestions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here helps the maintainers prioritise multilingual work.
The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.
It is the sort of thing that seems obvious in retrospect and was not at the time.
Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.
Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.