Revisiting: Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it

Revisiting: Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it — 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 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.

Multilingual versions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here with your willingness to help translate can make it happen.

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.

Coming back to post #18, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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

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

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.