Requesting a page: what makes a good request — what changed since posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Scope creep: if you think a page is attempting too much and should be split into multiple pages, that is a reasonable suggestion.
Flag a page that has drifted: if you notice a maintained page has information that is outdated (dates that have passed, regulatory changes, new evidence) post a flag so the maintainers see it.
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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
This follows post #62 rather than contradicting it.
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.
I read post #64 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.
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.
Scope creep: if you think a page is attempting too much and should be split into multiple pages, that is a reasonable suggestion.
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.
Coming back to post #68, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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 #71 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Coming back to post #71, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Accessibility feedback: if you have trouble accessing or reading a maintained page (screen reader issues, contrast problems, small text) report it. Accessibility matters.
Worth separating two things that post #71 runs together.
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.
post #75 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.
Format suggestions: if you think a maintained page could be clearer in its presentation (different section structure, different examples, added graphics) suggest the change.
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 #75 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Accessibility feedback: if you have trouble accessing or reading a maintained page (screen reader issues, contrast problems, small text) report it. Accessibility matters.
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.
Cross-referencing: if you notice two pages that should reference each other but do not, suggest the cross-reference.
Picking up post #80: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
Coming back to post #82, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
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.
This follows post #84 rather than contradicting it.
Translation suggestions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here helps the maintainers prioritise multilingual work.
Scope creep: if you think a page is attempting too much and should be split into multiple pages, that is a reasonable suggestion.
On post #86 — 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.