This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Coming back to post #59, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
post #63 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
New maintainer recruitment: if a page's maintainer is inactive and updates are needed, suggesting a new maintainer here can help transition responsibility.
Promoted topic withdrawal: if a promoted topic becomes outdated or inaccurate and the maintainer does not update, requesting withdrawal is appropriate.
Worth separating two things that post #63 runs together.
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.
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.
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 #70 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.
I read post #72 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.
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.
Multilingual versions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here with your willingness to help translate can make it happen.
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.
Multilingual versions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here with your willingness to help translate can make it happen.
Worth separating two things that post #76 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.
New maintainer recruitment: if a page's maintainer is inactive and updates are needed, suggesting a new maintainer here can help transition responsibility.
post #81 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
On post #81 — 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.
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.
Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.
Worth separating two things that post #85 runs together.
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.