A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset

A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

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.

Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.

Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.

Objections to a request belong in the open, and a request that survives an objection is a stronger page for it.

This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not.

Requests for a document covering something the evidence does not support get declined, and the decline usually points at what could be written instead.

Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine.

Name a willing maintainer in the request. Point three of the criteria stops more nominations than the other three combined.

On post #5 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Say what would make the page wrong. A page whose failure conditions are stated is much easier to review honestly.

I would hold that lightly until someone with a larger sample weighs in.

Picking up post #5: that is the part I would want checked first.

The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.

That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.

I had written a reply contradicting post #5 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Scope the request narrowly. A page about one thing gets written and stays current; a page about a field does not.

For what it is worth, the same held on the two occasions I checked.

Confirming post #9 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

Link the topics that prompted the request. The discussion is the evidence that the question recurs.

Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice.

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.

If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.

This is the first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated.

Post #10 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Format suggestions: if you think a maintained page could be clearer in its presentation (different section structure, different examples, added graphics) suggest the change.

Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.

Coming back to post #13, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

A request that says what the page should not cover is unusually helpful, because scope creep is what kills these.

A modest claim, modestly supported.