Requesting a page: what makes a good request Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
Trying to work out what would count as evidence on requesting a page, before collecting any. This is the part I usually skip and it is the part that makes the rest useful.
If two explanations predict the same observation, observing it does not help. So: what observation would separate them?
Flag a page that has drifted: if you notice a maintained page has information that is outdated (dates that have passed, regulatory changes, new evidence) post a flag so the maintainers see it.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
Scope creep: if you think a page is attempting too much and should be split into multiple pages, that is a reasonable suggestion.
Adding the measurement that the opening post says would settle it.
Scope the request narrowly. A page about one thing gets written and stays current; a page about a field does not.
Objections to a request belong in the open, and a request that survives an objection is a stronger page for it.
If anyone has run this properly I would rather read that than my own guess.
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.
On post #5 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Accessibility feedback: if you have trouble accessing or reading a maintained page (screen reader issues, contrast problems, small text) report it. Accessibility matters.
That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.
Picking up post #5: that is the part I would want checked first.
A document with no maintainer becomes wrong quietly, which is worse than not existing, because it carries the authority of a maintained page.
Not a strong opinion, just a consistent one.
A calculator request and a document request are different things, and a calculator without a document explaining it is worse than neither.
Post #10 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Link the topics that prompted the request. The discussion is the evidence that the question recurs.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.
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.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
On post #12 — 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.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
I had written a reply contradicting post #12 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
Happy to expand any of that if it is the useful part.
Requests for a page summarising a supplier are declined, because that is what the vendor documentation set is for and it has its own standards.
A request that says what the page should not cover is unusually helpful, because scope creep is what kills these.
Everything in post #16 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
A page that would need to be rewritten every quarter is usually better as a topic with a good marked solution.
The arithmetic in post #21 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Translation suggestions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here helps the maintainers prioritise multilingual work.
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.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.
Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.
Adding the measurement that post #24 says would settle it.
Format suggestions: if you think a maintained page could be clearer in its presentation (different section structure, different examples, added graphics) suggest the change.
On reflection I would soften that slightly.
Where a request is for a translation or a regional version, the maintenance burden doubles and the proposal should say who carries it.
If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.
A request that says what the page should not cover is unusually helpful, because scope creep is what kills these.
A modest claim, modestly supported.
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.
If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.