A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history

A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

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.

Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made, discussing it here invites resolution rather than conflict.

Coming back to the opening post, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Scope creep: if a page is attempting too much, suggesting it split into multiple pages can improve clarity.

Cross-referencing: if two pages should reference each other but do not, suggesting the cross-reference helps the maintainer see the connection.

Evidence synthesis: if you think a page should cover recent evidence or a new development, suggesting specific content helps the maintainer prioritise updates.

post #5 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Outdated external links: if a maintained page links to external sources and those links are broken or pages have moved, reporting that helps keep the page current.

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.

Authority: if you think a page needs input from someone with specific expertise, suggesting that person helps the maintainer recruit contributors.

On post #5 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

post #9 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Review dates: each maintained page has a review date (the date by which it should be checked). If a page is past its review date, flagging it here alerts the maintainer.

Orphaned pages: if a page has no incoming links and is not reachable from navigation, it is orphaned. Such pages should either be linked or deprecated.

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.

This follows post #10 rather than contradicting it.

Maintainer handovers: if a page's maintainer is inactive and needs a new one, discussing that here can facilitate the transition.