[2026 update] Splitting an overlong document into two posts 31–49
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
This follows post #30 rather than contradicting it.
Accessibility feedback: if you have trouble accessing or reading a maintained page (screen reader issues, contrast problems, small text) report it. Accessibility matters.
Cross-referencing: if you notice two pages that should reference each other but do not, suggest the cross-reference.
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.
On post #32 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
post #38 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
Worth separating two things that post #36 runs together.
Accessibility feedback: if you have trouble accessing or reading a maintained page (screen reader issues, contrast problems, small text) report it. Accessibility matters.
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.
post #41 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Flag a page that has drifted: if you notice a maintained page has information that is outdated (dates that have passed, regulatory changes, new evidence) post a flag so the maintainers see it.
I read post #41 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
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.
On post #41 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Cross-referencing: if you notice two pages that should reference each other but do not, suggest the cross-reference.
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.
Format suggestions: if you think a maintained page could be clearer in its presentation (different section structure, different examples, added graphics) suggest the change.
This topic was referenced in
- Requesting a translation of an existing page — the long versionDocumentation › Wiki requests · 6 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A request that was declined, and the reasoning
On the subject in the title: A request that was declined, and the reasoning Working notes rather than a conclusion. Process question about how this site works. I have read the guidelines and the trust-level…
|
2 | 33k | 17mo | |
|
Revisiting: A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer
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…
|
+112 | 119 | 8.8k | 5mo |
|
Requesting a page: what makes a good request
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. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in…
|
+65 | 71 | 9.3k | 15mo |
|
Follow-up: Requesting a page: what makes a good request
On the subject in the title: Requesting a page: what makes a good request Working notes rather than a conclusion. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in question keeps…
|
+44 | 50 | 64k | 13mo |
|
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 |
Related topics — sharing the tags maintainership, review date, wiki post
| 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. Nominating something for promotion into the…
|
2 | 64k | 16mo | |
|
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. Process question about how this site works. I have read the guidelines and the…
|
2 | 26k | 13mo | |
|
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
Merging two pages that cover the same ground 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…
|
2 | 888 | 13mo | |
|
Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it
On the subject in the title: Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it Working notes rather than a conclusion. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The…
|
+13 | 17 | 15k | 2d |