A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history — a second dataset posts 31–51

Worth separating two things that post #29 runs together.

That is the most useful kind of report and the hardest to notice. Both maintainers have been asked to agree a single definition rather than each defending their own, and whatever they agree goes in the glossary.

Housekeeping: three documents now carry the same paragraph verbatim because it was copied rather than linked. One of them should hold it and the other two should point at it.

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

That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.

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

Post #33 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

The confident answers on revision dispute resolved and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.

On post #33 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Maintenance note. This document is due for review and the maintainer has asked for a second reader before the date rather than after it. If you use this page regularly, this is the moment your objection is cheapest to act on.

Picking up post #33: that is the part I would want checked first.

Proposing an edit rather than making one, because it changes a number. The figure in the third paragraph is right for the licensed formulation and is being read as general. I would add four words scoping it.

Support the scoping edit. A number in a maintained document gets quoted without its context roughly forever, so the context has to be inside the sentence rather than in the paragraph above it.

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

Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.

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

Answering the revision dispute resolved question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.

I came in to disagree and I am leaving without a disagreement.

Taking post #38 at face value and following it one step further.

Revision dispute resolved: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.

Post #41 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Question for the editors: what is the standard for adding a citation to a claim that is community practice rather than published? At the moment those sentences are unmarked and read as though they were sourced.

Fine by me. I had wanted a stronger conclusion and there is not one available.

On revision dispute resolved the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.