Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.
28 likes 6mo
Documentation · Wiki requests · continued
Revisiting: A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
a.nwosu, post #50: 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. Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward. 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.
Post #62 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
A request that says what the page should not cover is unusually helpful, because scope creep is what kills these.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
0 likes 6mo
Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
21 likes 6mo
e.ferreira, post #47: Flag a page that has drifted: if you notice a maintained page has information that is outdated (dates that have passed, regulatory changes, new evidence) post a flag so the maintainers see it. Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there. Go to post
Name a willing maintainer in the request. Point three of the criteria stops more nominations than the other three combined.
Confirming post #65 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.
A weak preference rather than a position.
0 likes 6mo
Post #65 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Say what would make the page wrong. A page whose failure conditions are stated is much easier to review honestly.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.
15 likes 6mo
The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.
0 likes 6mo
IHollingworth, post #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. 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.
I had written a reply contradicting post #71 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
It took me longer than it should have to see that.
15 likes 6mo
erratum_file, post #71: The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important. Go to post
The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.
n.ekstrom, post #14: 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. Go to post
Scope the request narrowly. A page about one thing gets written and stays current; a page about a field does not.
Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Post #76 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
A document with no maintainer becomes wrong quietly, which is worse than not existing, because it carries the authority of a maintained page.
The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
Narrowing post #76, because the general version has more than one answer.
Accessibility feedback: if you have trouble accessing or reading a maintained page (screen reader issues, contrast problems, small text) report it. Accessibility matters.
I am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude.
22 likes 6mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Everything in post #79 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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 reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.
dr_okonkwo, post #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. 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 saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Post #82 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Translation suggestions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here helps the maintainers prioritise multilingual work.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
c.vasquez, post #22: The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important. Go to post
Post #82 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Name a willing maintainer in the request. Point three of the criteria stops more nominations than the other three combined.
ak.kravchenko, post #3: 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. Go to post
A request that says what the page should not cover is unusually helpful, because scope creep is what kills these.
I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.
Scope creep: if you think a page is attempting too much and should be split into multiple pages, that is a reasonable suggestion.
25 likes 5mo
Narrowing post #87, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
12 likes 5mo
Building on post #87 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.
0 likes 5mo