This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.
Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.
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 honest answer is that it depends, and here is what it depends on.
Flag a page that has drifted: if you notice a maintained page has information that is outdated (dates that have passed, regulatory changes, new evidence) post a flag so the maintainers see it.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.
The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
On post #96 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
Confirming post #98 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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 reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had.
Building on post #99 rather than restating it.
The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.
Flagging that the sources on this are thinner than the confidence in the thread suggests.
Translation suggestions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here helps the maintainers prioritise multilingual work.
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.
Post #104 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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 a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
Where I part company with post #102, and it is a narrow parting.
Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.
I would rather be precise about what I do not know than vague about what I do.
Scope creep: if you think a page is attempting too much and should be split into multiple pages, that is a reasonable suggestion.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
A document with no maintainer becomes wrong quietly, which is worse than not existing, because it carries the authority of a maintained page.
Name a willing maintainer in the request. Point three of the criteria stops more nominations than the other three combined.
This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching.
Confirming post #109 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.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
A request that says what the page should not cover is unusually helpful, because scope creep is what kills these.
It is one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one.
Where I part company with post #113, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
Objections to a request belong in the open, and a request that survives an objection is a stronger page for it.
That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.
Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
About the Wiki requests category
Request a new maintained page, or flag one that has drifted out of date. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its author and a note.…
|
+3 | 7 | 655 | 19mo |
|
Splitting an overlong document into two
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Splitting an overlong document into two Everything below is what sits behind that. Trying to work out what would count as evidence on splitting an overlong…
|
+30 | 34 | 6.2k | 1d |
|
A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset
A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Process question about how this site works. I have read the…
|
+89 | 98 | 31k | 11mo |
|
Merging two pages that cover the same ground — the long version
On the subject in the title: Merging two pages that cover the same ground — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. Bringing the figures rather than the impression, since a process question…
|
+5 | 9 | 209 | 20mo |
|
A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer
On the subject in the title: A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer Working notes rather than a conclusion. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in…
|
+95 | 104 | 1.2k | 14mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Follow-up: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked?
The question in the title: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I would like to know what people here actually do about…
|
2 | 64k | 16mo | |
|
Request declined, with reasoning
Request declined, with reasoning — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I would like to know what people here actually do about request declined, as distinct from what is…
|
+2 | 6 | 173 | 13mo |
|
About the Wiki maintenance category
Review dates, orphaned pages, maintainer handovers, and revision disputes. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its author and a…
|
4 | 42k | 15mo | |
|
About the Feature requests category
Requests for platform and documentation features, with the reasoning that justifies them. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its…
|
4 | 28k | 9mo | |
|
Coming back to: Request: tag synonyms surfaced in search
Request: tag synonyms surfaced in search Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Tag synonyms surfaced in search — I have the observation and I do not trust my…
|
2 | 26k | 13mo |