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 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 to a page, discuss it here. The goal is accuracy and clarity, not authorship.

Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

Coming back to post #3, 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.

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

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.

Promoted topic withdrawal: if a promoted topic becomes outdated or inaccurate and the maintainer does not update, requesting withdrawal is appropriate.

I read post #6 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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

post #8 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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 #6 — 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.

Coming back to post #9, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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.

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

post #13 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.