This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #28 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Link the topics that prompted the request. The discussion is the evidence that the question recurs.
The claim is narrower than it sounds, and deliberately so.
Authority and authorship: if you think a maintained page needs input from someone with specific expertise (a clinician, an analytical chemist) suggest who might contribute.
Flag a page that has drifted: if you notice a maintained page has information that is outdated (dates that have passed, regulatory changes, new evidence) post a flag so the maintainers see it.
The commonest reason a good request stalls is that nobody converted it into a draft. A rough draft attracts editors; a request does not.
Review cadence should be part of the proposal. A page about a fast-moving area needs a shorter cycle and somebody willing to honour it.
Coming back to post #39, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Format suggestions: if you think a maintained page could be clearer in its presentation (different section structure, different examples, added graphics) suggest the change.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
Post #39 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Name a willing maintainer in the request. Point three of the criteria stops more nominations than the other three combined.
If a request is declined, the reasoning is written down, and it is worth reading because it usually describes a better version of the same idea.
I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.
Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.
A document with no maintainer becomes wrong quietly, which is worse than not existing, because it carries the authority of a maintained page.
Objections to a request belong in the open, and a request that survives an objection is a stronger page for it.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
Picking up post #47: that is the part I would want checked first.
Correction requests: if you spot an error in a maintained page, note it here with the specific correction. The maintainer will review and update if justified.
Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward.
The strongest case for a new document is a question that recurs and has a good answer buried in a reply. That is the promotion criterion as written.
I keep a log of this specifically because memory is unreliable about it.
Requests for a page summarising a supplier are declined, because that is what the vendor documentation set is for and it has its own standards.
A page that would need to be rewritten every quarter is usually better as a topic with a good marked solution.
I looked this up rather than remembered it, which is the right order.
The arithmetic in post #50 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Translation suggestions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here helps the maintainers prioritise multilingual work.
If a request is declined, the reasoning is written down, and it is worth reading because it usually describes a better version of the same idea.
Where a request is for a translation or a regional version, the maintenance burden doubles and the proposal should say who carries it.
Written quickly, so the reasoning may be tighter than the wording.
I had written a reply contradicting post #52 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Name a willing maintainer in the request. Point three of the criteria stops more nominations than the other three combined.
I have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread.
Post #56 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Review cadence should be part of the proposal. A page about a fast-moving area needs a shorter cycle and somebody willing to honour it.
Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.
Coming back to post #56, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
A request is more likely to succeed with a proposed outline attached. "Somebody should write about X" rarely moves; a structure and two sections does.