Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Worth separating two things that post #58 runs together.
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.
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.
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.
On post #62 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
Promoted topic withdrawal: if a promoted topic becomes outdated or inaccurate and the maintainer does not update, requesting withdrawal is appropriate.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
New maintainer recruitment: if a page's maintainer is inactive and updates are needed, suggesting a new maintainer here can help transition responsibility.
post #68 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.
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.
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.
On post #69 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
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.
This follows post #73 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.
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.
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
Coming back to post #77, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
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.
post #82 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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 #80 runs together.
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.
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.
This follows post #86 rather than contradicting it.
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.
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.