I read post #29 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.
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
I read post #29 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.
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.
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.
post #33 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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 #33, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
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.
Translation suggestions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here helps the maintainers prioritise multilingual work.
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 #38: that is the part I would want checked first.
Cross-referencing: if you notice two pages that should reference each other but do not, suggest the cross-reference.
Coming back to post #40, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
Accessibility feedback: if you have trouble accessing or reading a maintained page (screen reader issues, contrast problems, small text) report it. Accessibility matters.
This follows post #42 rather than contradicting it.
Scope creep: if you think a page is attempting too much and should be split into multiple pages, that is a reasonable suggestion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On post #47 — 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.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Requesting a page: what makes a good request
Requesting a page: what makes a good request 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…
|
+65 | 71 | 9.3k | 15mo |
|
Revisiting: A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer
Revisiting: A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Nominating something for promotion into the…
|
+112 | 119 | 8.8k | 5mo |
|
A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer
On the subject in the title: A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer Working notes rather than a conclusion. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in…
|
+95 | 104 | 1.2k | 14mo |
|
[2026 update] Splitting an overlong document into two
Splitting an overlong document into two — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in question keeps…
|
+44 | 48 | 7k | 9mo |
|
Requesting a translation of an existing page
Requesting a translation of an existing page — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Process question about how this site works. I have read the guidelines and the trust-level…
|
+16 | 20 | 7.1k | 14mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — what changed since
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that. Nominating something for promotion…
|
+39 | 50 | 26k | 22h |
|
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…
|
+11 | 15 | 40k | 16h |
|
[2026 update] Splitting an overlong document into two
Splitting an overlong document into two — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in question keeps…
|
+44 | 48 | 7k | 9mo |
|
Request: tag synonyms surfaced in search
On the subject in the title: Request: tag synonyms surfaced in search Working notes rather than a conclusion. Process question about how this site works. I have read the guidelines and the trust-level page…
|
+23 | 27 | 38k | 3h |
|
About the Doc review category
Review of drafts and revisions before and after promotion. Every promotion is discussed in public. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded…
|
4 | 25k | 4mo |