Coming back to: Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it posts 31–48
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
A document that repeats a paragraph already maintained elsewhere should link instead, unless the reader would be mid-task and unable to follow a link.
It took me longer than it should have to see that.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Post #32 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
I would call the community position on Recording a dissent likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.
Taking post #32 at face value and following it one step further.
Recording a dissent is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
This follows post #35 rather than contradicting it.
Check the links. Promotion frequently breaks a cross-reference because the source topic now points at the document rather than the reverse.
I would rather be precise about what I do not know than vague about what I do.
Post #35 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Second maintainers matter. A single maintainer is a single point of failure and every document here that went stale had one.
If anyone has run this properly I would rather read that than my own guess.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
That is the distinction I keep failing to hold on to. Written down now.
Confirming post #39 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Recording a dissent would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
The most useful review comment names a sentence and says what is wrong with it. General approval and general concern are both hard to act on.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.
Approving a document you have not read is worse than not responding, and it happens because approval feels supportive.
Post #42 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Nothing in a maintained document is medical advice and the review should confirm the page says so where it matters rather than only in a footer.
I looked this up rather than remembered it, which is the right order.
Post #44 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
An update on my earlier Recording a dissent post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain.
Where I part company with post #42, and it is a narrow parting.
Point three stops most nominations. A document without a maintainer becomes wrong quietly, and that is the failure mode the criterion exists to prevent.
On reflection I would soften that slightly.
A document that repeats a paragraph already maintained elsewhere should link instead, unless the reader would be mid-task and unable to follow a link.
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Follow-up: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked?
The question in the title: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I would like to know what people here actually do about…
|
2 | 64k | 16mo | |
|
What happens when a maintainer goes quiet
The question in the title: What happens when a maintainer goes quiet I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Nomination for promotion into the documentation commons, with the…
|
+3 | 7 | 13k | 2.1y |
|
Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked? I would like to know what people here actually do about review cadence, as distinct from…
|
+20 | 24 | 20k | 15mo |
|
Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version
On the subject in the title: Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A narrow question about Promotion criteria, deliberately…
|
+130 | 143 | 7.2k | 6mo |
|
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. The question about draft on reconstitution…
|
+46 | 51 | 11k | 20h |
Related topics — sharing the tags promoted to docs, review date, wiki post
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Merging two pages that cover the same ground — the long version
On the subject in the title: Merging two pages that cover the same ground — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. Bringing the figures rather than the impression, since a process question…
|
+5 | 9 | 209 | 20mo |
|
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. The question about draft on reconstitution…
|
+46 | 51 | 11k | 20h |
|
[2026 update] Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed
Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. What changes if the standard account of Citation…
|
+41 | 45 | 47k | 12mo |
|
Splitting an overlong document into two
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Splitting an overlong document into two Everything below is what sits behind that. Trying to work out what would count as evidence on splitting an overlong…
|
+30 | 34 | 6.2k | 1d |
|
About the Feature requests category
Requests for platform and documentation features, with the reasoning that justifies them. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its…
|
4 | 28k | 9mo |