Coming back to: Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it posts 31–48
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Promoted topic withdrawal: if a promoted topic becomes outdated or inaccurate and the maintainer does not update, requesting withdrawal is appropriate.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
I read post #31 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
New maintainer recruitment: if a page's maintainer is inactive and updates are needed, suggesting a new maintainer here can help transition responsibility.
This follows post #31 rather than contradicting it.
Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.
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.
Picking up post #35: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #35 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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Promoted topic withdrawal: if a promoted topic becomes outdated or inaccurate and the maintainer does not update, requesting withdrawal is appropriate.
post #40 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.
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.
Multilingual versions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here with your willingness to help translate can make it happen.
I read post #42 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
post #44 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
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.
Suggested topics
| 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 | |
|
What happens when a maintainer goes quiet
The question in the title: What happens when a maintainer goes quiet I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The…
|
+3 | 7 | 13k | 2.1y |
|
Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked? Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in question…
|
+20 | 24 | 20k | 15mo |
|
Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version
On the subject in the title: Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation…
|
+130 | 143 | 7.2k | 6mo |
|
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Nominating something for promotion into the…
|
+46 | 51 | 11k | 20h |
Related topics — sharing the tags promoted to docs, review date, wiki post
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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. Process question about how this site works. I have read the guidelines and…
|
+5 | 9 | 209 | 20mo |
|
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Nominating something for promotion into the…
|
+46 | 51 | 11k | 20h |
|
[2026 update] Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed
Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Nominating something for promotion into the…
|
+41 | 45 | 47k | 12mo |
|
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. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in…
|
+30 | 34 | 6.2k | 1d |
|
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 |