Documentation · Wiki requests

Revisiting: A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer

Documentation › Wiki requests maintainership promoted to docs wiki post review date

hana.satoTL4 Moderator13 Dec 2025#1

Revisiting: A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons.

The topic in question keeps being re-asked, has a good marked solution, and contains a worked example that would be more useful on a page with a review date than buried in a reply. That is exactly the promotion criterion as written.

Objections welcome and genuinely wanted — the whole point of discussing promotions in public is that a bad promotion is harder to undo than a bad reply.

0 likes 7mo

a.schaefferTL2Member15 Dec 2025#2

Reading rather than answering, but this is the post I would point somebody at.

25 likes 7mo

ak.kravchenkoTL217 Dec 2025 · edited#3

hana.sato, post #1: Revisiting: A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in question keeps being re-asked, has a good marked solution, and contains a worked example that would be… Go to post

Answering the question the opening post raises rather than the one it answers.

Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.

7 likes in reply to #1 7mo

integrator_traceTL2Member18 Dec 2025#4

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

1 like 7mo

t.marchettiTL219 Dec 2025#5

a.schaeffer, post #2: Reading rather than answering, but this is the post I would point somebody at. Go to post

Format suggestions: if you think a maintained page could be clearer in its presentation (different section structure, different examples, added graphics) suggest the change.

The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.

0 likes in reply to #2 7mo

IHollingworthTL2Member20 Dec 2025#6

Confirming post #5 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

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

The mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.

0 likes 7mo

c.nybergTL221 Dec 2025#7

Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above

Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.

l.sarkissianTL2Member22 Dec 2025#8

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.

That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.

4 likes in reply to #1 7mo

r.sobczakTL223 Dec 2025#9

Saving this. It is the version I will quote when the question comes round again.

1 like 7mo

r.jhannsdttirTL3Regular24 Dec 2025#10

l.sarkissian, post #8: 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. That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it. Go to post

Post #8 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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

0 likes in reply to #8 7mo

n.cabreraTL225 Dec 2025#11

Picking up post #10: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

4 likes 7mo

steady_stateTL3Regular26 Dec 2025#12

Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.

12 likes 7mo

s.vukovicTL227 Dec 2025#13

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

That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.

0 likes 7mo

n.ekstromTL2Regular27 Dec 2025#14

n.cabrera, post #11: Picking up post #10: that is the part I would want checked first. 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. Go to post

I had written a reply contradicting post #12 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

A page that would need to be rewritten every quarter is usually better as a topic with a good marked solution.

I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this.

0 likes in reply to #11 7mo

h.agyemanTL228 Dec 2025#15

Adding the measurement that post #14 says would settle it.

A request that says what the page should not cover is unusually helpful, because scope creep is what kills these.

The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.

7 likes 7mo

dietitian_hollisTL3Dietitian29 Dec 2025#16

Post #12 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

Scope the request narrowly. A page about one thing gets written and stays current; a page about a field does not.

I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.

18 likes 7mo

e.halonenTL230 Dec 2025#17

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

0 likes 7mo

journalclub_wrenTL3Regular31 Dec 2025 · edited#18

steady_state, post #12: Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change. Go to post

Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.

Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.

1 like in reply to #12 7mo

v.rautioTL21 Jan 2026#19

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

Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.

0 likes 7mo

BirkelandTL31 Jan 2026#20

Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above

Understood. Thank you for being specific about the limits of it.

customs_ledgerTL3Regular2 Jan 2026#21

h.agyeman, post #15: Adding the measurement that post #14 says would settle it. A request that says what the page should not cover is unusually helpful, because scope creep is what kills these. The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one. 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.

If that is already documented somewhere, ignore me and link it.

0 likes in reply to #15 7mo

c.vasquezTL23 Jan 2026#22

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

22 likes 7mo

logbook_erinTL3Regular4 Jan 2026#23

Answering the question post #21 raises rather than the one it answers.

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

10 likes 7mo

p.ostergaardTL24 Jan 2026#24

The arithmetic in post #21 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Name a willing maintainer in the request. Point three of the criteria stops more nominations than the other three combined.

That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.

3 likes 7mo

v.szaboTL3Analytical chemist5 Jan 2026#25

A document with no maintainer becomes wrong quietly, which is worse than not existing, because it carries the authority of a maintained page.

0 likes 7mo

o.vukovicTL26 Jan 2026#26

Confirming post #25 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

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.

30 likes 7mo

a.finnegan_rdTL2Dietitian7 Jan 2026 · edited#27

Post #25 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.

The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.

15 likes 7mo

v.kirchnerTL27 Jan 2026#28

That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.

5 likes 7mo

dr_okonkwoTL4 Moderator8 Jan 2026#29

Coming back to post #25, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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

1 like 7mo

i.bakkenTL29 Jan 2026#30

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.

The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.

0 likes 7mo

Sponsored Janoshik Analytical — independent third-party testingHPLC purity and mass-spectrometric identity on submitted samples, reported with the method stated. The laboratory most often cited in this community’s verification records.Independent testing → Sponsored GL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — synthesis, directFounded 1998. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, over 1,500 staff and 200-plus patents. Custom peptide synthesis and amino acid derivatives, with a batch certificate on every order.Custom synthesis →