Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made, discussing it here invites resolution rather than conflict. I have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread.
On the subject in the title: A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion.
Posting a small dataset on revision dispute resolved. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and the method is stated so it can be discounted appropriately.
What I would like is not agreement but a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in mine. If one exists I would rather read it than argue for this one.
Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made, discussing it here invites resolution rather than conflict.
I have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread.
Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.
Flagging a stale cross-reference. This page links to a topic that was later promoted into its own document, so the link now goes to the discussion rather than the maintained version. Worth repointing.
Agreed. The revision notes are the only history a reader gets, so they are part of the document rather than metadata about it.
Narrowing post #6, because the general version has more than one answer.
Revision dispute resolved is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers.
Everything in post #4 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
I would call the community position on revision dispute resolved likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.
Confirming post #6 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The convention is to label them explicitly as community practice in the sentence. It is not always applied, and where it is not, that is a defect rather than a style choice.
If anyone can point at the primary source I would be grateful.
I had written a reply contradicting post #8 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The honest answer on revision dispute resolved is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.
Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.
That is the most useful kind of report and the hardest to notice. Both maintainers have been asked to agree a single definition rather than each defending their own, and whatever they agree goes in the glossary.
Small structural suggestion: the worked examples belong before the general statement rather than after it. Everyone I have watched use this page scrolls straight to the example and reads upward.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.
Confirming post #11 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Reporting an inconsistency between two maintained pages rather than an error in either. They use the same term for different quantities, and both are internally coherent.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
Where I part company with post #15, and it is a narrow parting.
Requesting a review date change rather than a content change. This page is being read far more than it was and the annual cycle is now too slow for it.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
That is a cleaner way of putting what I was circling around.
Repointed, and thank you. That failure mode is common enough after a promotion that it should probably be part of the promotion checklist rather than something we catch by reading.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.
The arithmetic in post #19 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Question for the editors: what is the standard for adding a citation to a claim that is community practice rather than published? At the moment those sentences are unmarked and read as though they were sourced.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
Volunteering for the review on this one. I use it monthly, I have a list of three things that have aged badly, and I am willing to be named as the second maintainer.
Maintenance note. This document is due for review and the maintainer has asked for a second reader before the date rather than after it. If you use this page regularly, this is the moment your objection is cheapest to act on.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this.
Support the scoping edit. A number in a maintained document gets quoted without its context roughly forever, so the context has to be inside the sentence rather than in the paragraph above it.
Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.
Confirming post #24 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Checked the revision dispute resolved claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
This follows post #28 rather than contradicting it.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.
The arithmetic on revision dispute resolved is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.