A promotion I argued against, and why I lost

Posting this under the heading it deserves: A promotion I argued against, and why I lost Everything below is what sits behind that.

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.

Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.

Evidence synthesis requests: if you think a page should summarise the state of evidence on a question, and you think the information exists but is scattered, suggest how it could be brought together.

post #4 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Fact-checking: if you see a factual claim in a maintained page that you have evidence contradicts, post the evidence here. The maintainer will review and correct if you are right.

Citation checking: if a maintained page cites a paper, the citation should match what the paper actually says. If you notice a mismatch, post it here.

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made to a page, discuss it here. The goal is accuracy and clarity, not authorship.

Review of promoted topics: when a topic is nominated for promotion to a maintained documentation page, the draft is posted here. Community review happens before promotion. Objections are welcome.

Review date disputes: if a maintained page's review date is approaching and it has not been updated, post a note so the maintainers notice.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

Worth separating two things that post #9 runs together.

New maintainer recruitment: if a page's maintainer is inactive and updates are needed, suggesting a new maintainer here can help transition responsibility.

post #13 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.