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 with numbers attached is a different conversation.

6 instances over 14 months, 5 of which went the other way. I have listed each with a date and a link so the count can be checked rather than taken.

My question is whether the pattern is the one the rule was written for.

Everything in the opening post holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

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

I would want a second opinion before relying on that.

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 my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.

Scope creep: if you think a page is attempting too much and should be split into multiple pages, that is a reasonable suggestion.

The arithmetic in post #2 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Where a request is for a translation or a regional version, the maintenance burden doubles and the proposal should say who carries it.

Happy to expand any of that if it is the useful part.

Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.

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

A request is more likely to succeed with a proposed outline attached. "Somebody should write about X" rarely moves; a structure and two sections does.

It reads as pedantry until the day it does not.

If a request is declined, the reasoning is written down, and it is worth reading because it usually describes a better version of the same idea.

I have left out the parts I could not verify.