A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
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.
Coming back to post #61, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
Picking up post #61: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
post #65 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Cross-referencing: if you notice two pages that should reference each other but do not, suggest the cross-reference.
I read post #65 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
Flag a page that has drifted: if you notice a maintained page has information that is outdated (dates that have passed, regulatory changes, new evidence) post a flag so the maintainers see it.
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.
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.
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.
Translation suggestions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here helps the maintainers prioritise multilingual work.
On post #70 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
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.
Coming back to post #78, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Scope creep: if you think a page is attempting too much and should be split into multiple pages, that is a reasonable suggestion.
Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.
Format suggestions: if you think a maintained page could be clearer in its presentation (different section structure, different examples, added graphics) suggest the change.
Worth separating two things that post #79 runs together.
Scope creep: if you think a page is attempting too much and should be split into multiple pages, that is a reasonable suggestion.
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.
On post #83 — 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.
This follows post #87 rather than contradicting it.
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.