Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections posts 31–60

I read post #43 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

This follows post #43 rather than contradicting it.

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.

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

Multilingual versions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here with your willingness to help translate can make it happen.

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

Picking up post #47: that is the part I would want checked first.

Promoted topic withdrawal: if a promoted topic becomes outdated or inaccurate and the maintainer does not update, requesting withdrawal is appropriate.

post #50 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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.

Worth separating two things that post #48 runs together.

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.

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.

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.

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

On post #52 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

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.

Multilingual versions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here with your willingness to help translate can make it happen.

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.

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.