Requesting a page: what makes a good request — what changed since posts 91–120
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #89 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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 has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.
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.
Post #94 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Name a willing maintainer in the request. Point three of the criteria stops more nominations than the other three combined.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
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.
The arithmetic in post #97 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
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.
The claim is narrower than it sounds, and deliberately so.
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.
Translation suggestions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here helps the maintainers prioritise multilingual work.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
Coming back to post #101, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
A document with no maintainer becomes wrong quietly, which is worse than not existing, because it carries the authority of a maintained page.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.
Post #101 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Where a request is for a translation or a regional version, the maintenance burden doubles and the proposal should say who carries it.
Scope the request narrowly. A page about one thing gets written and stays current; a page about a field does not.
I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
Confirming post #105 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
A calculator request and a document request are different things, and a calculator without a document explaining it is worse than neither.
Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.
Acknowledging rather than arguing. The reasoning holds as far as I can follow it.
Post #109 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Scope creep: if you think a page is attempting too much and should be split into multiple pages, that is a reasonable suggestion.
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.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
Two claims get bundled together under Requesting a page and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
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.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
Post #116 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
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 would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.