This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part.
18 likes 22mo
Documentation · Wiki requests · continued
Requesting a page: what makes a good request — what changed since posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
GSwinburne, post #8: On post #6 — 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. That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close. Go to post
The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
s.chowdhury, post #13: Coming back to post #9, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. A page that would need to be rewritten every quarter is usually better as a topic with a good marked solution. Anyone with a larger sample, please post it. Go to post
Post #32 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Scope the request narrowly. A page about one thing gets written and stays current; a page about a field does not.
citation_index, post #6: Authority and authorship: if you think a maintained page needs input from someone with specific expertise (a clinician, an analytical chemist) suggest who might contribute. Go to post
Taking post #35 at face value and following it one step further.
Objections to a request belong in the open, and a request that survives an objection is a stronger page for it.
Flag a page that has drifted: if you notice a maintained page has information that is outdated (dates that have passed, regulatory changes, new evidence) post a flag so the maintainers see it.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
0 likes 22mo
A document with no maintainer becomes wrong quietly, which is worse than not existing, because it carries the authority of a maintained page.
If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.
33 likes 22mo
SHermansen, post #29: Building on post #26 rather than restating it. 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. Go to post
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.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
Confirming post #41 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Translation suggestions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here helps the maintainers prioritise multilingual work.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
9 likes 22mo
TL4_Halvorsen, post #17: Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it. Go to post
A page that would need to be rewritten every quarter is usually better as a topic with a good marked solution.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
o.abrahamsen, post #27: Objections to a request belong in the open, and a request that survives an objection is a stronger page for it. Go to post
Where a request is for a translation or a regional version, the maintenance burden doubles and the proposal should say who carries it.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
Post #44 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Format suggestions: if you think a maintained page could be clearer in its presentation (different section structure, different examples, added graphics) suggest the change.
5 likes 22mo
Where I part company with post #46, and it is a narrow parting.
I have three months of notes on Requesting a page and the honest summary is that the trend is real and the week-to-week numbers are noise. I nearly drew the opposite conclusion from the first fortnight.
15 likes 22mo
The arithmetic in post #48 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Link the topics that prompted the request. The discussion is the evidence that the question recurs.
30 likes 22mo
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
0 likes 22mo
ch.correia, post #18: Translation suggestions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here helps the maintainers prioritise multilingual work. That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more. Go to post
Accessibility feedback: if you have trouble accessing or reading a maintained page (screen reader issues, contrast problems, small text) report it. Accessibility matters.
The honest answer is that it depends, and here is what it depends on.
Post #49 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
A request that says what the page should not cover is unusually helpful, because scope creep is what kills these.
8 likes 22mo
an.ibarra, post #14: 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. I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge. Go to post
The strongest case for a new document is a question that recurs and has a good answer buried in a reply. That is the promotion criterion as written.
That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.
KStephanopoulos, post #2: The strongest case for a new document is a question that recurs and has a good answer buried in a reply. That is the promotion criterion as written. Go to post
The commonest reason a good request stalls is that nobody converted it into a draft. A rough draft attracts editors; a request does not.
I looked this up rather than remembered it, which is the right order.
Picking up post #57: that is the part I would want checked first.
I disagree with the framing of Requesting a page above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
0 likes 22mo
Coming back to post #57, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
21 likes 22mo