Requesting a page: what makes a good request — what changed since posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Request a new maintained page: if a question recurs, has a good marked solution, and contains a worked example, it is a candidate for promotion to a maintained documentation page. Post your nomination in this subcategory with a link to the topic.
Say what would make the page wrong. A page whose failure conditions are stated is much easier to review honestly.
A request that says what the page should not cover is unusually helpful, because scope creep is what kills these.
The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Taking post #62 at face value and following it one step further.
The confident answers on Requesting a page and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.
Post #64 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
That much is documented. The rest is how I have interpreted it.
The commonest reason a good request stalls is that nobody converted it into a draft. A rough draft attracts editors; a request does not.
Link the topics that prompted the request. The discussion is the evidence that the question recurs.
Scope creep: if you think a page is attempting too much and should be split into multiple pages, that is a reasonable suggestion.
That is the honest state of it as of this week.
Post #68 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Flag a page that has drifted: if you notice a maintained page has information that is outdated (dates that have passed, regulatory changes, new evidence) post a flag so the maintainers see it.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
Building on post #71 rather than restating it.
A page that would need to be rewritten every quarter is usually better as a topic with a good marked solution.
That is all I can say without guessing.
This settles it for me, at least until somebody posts a reason it should not.
Where I part company with post #71, and it is a narrow parting.
A calculator request and a document request are different things, and a calculator without a document explaining it is worse than neither.
I am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude.
Post #75 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
Caveat: everything above assumes the paperwork is what it says it is.
Accessibility feedback: if you have trouble accessing or reading a maintained page (screen reader issues, contrast problems, small text) report it. Accessibility matters.
The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.
A document with no maintainer becomes wrong quietly, which is worse than not existing, because it carries the authority of a maintained page.
Worth separating two things that post #75 runs together.
Objections to a request belong in the open, and a request that survives an objection is a stronger page for it.
Flagging that the sources on this are thinner than the confidence in the thread suggests.
Following this. I have the same question and no better information than the first post.
Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.
The arithmetic in post #82 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
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.
Answering the question post #82 raises rather than the one it answers.
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.
That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.
Scope the request narrowly. A page about one thing gets written and stays current; a page about a field does not.
Adding the measurement that post #84 says would settle it.
Reading this Requesting a page thread as someone who came in with a fixed view: the third and seventh replies moved me and the confident ones did not.
Format suggestions: if you think a maintained page could be clearer in its presentation (different section structure, different examples, added graphics) suggest the change.
Coming back to post #86, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.