DEPR: Series.ravel
- [ ] closes #52511 
- [ ] [Tests added and passed](https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/dev/development/contributing_codebase.html#writing-tests) if fixing a bug or adding a new feature
- [ ] All [code checks passed](https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/dev/development/contributing_codebase.html#pre-commit).
- [ ] Added [type annotations](https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/dev/development/contributing_codebase.html#type-hints) to new arguments/methods/functions.
- [x] Added an entry in the latest `doc/source/whatsnew/vX.X.X.rst` file if fixing a bug or adding a new feature.

I'll have to take a closer look here, looks like we are using this internally. Will get to this over the weekend. pr itself is good! Thanks for your answer, Should I replace the internal usage of this function ?  I'll have to check what we are doing before I can give you a definitiv answer here One place where we use `ravel()` internally that seems to cause many of the failures is in `maybe_downcast_numeric`:

https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/blob/961f9c4d7899121669c4832512c5903db573bb47/pandas/core/dtypes/cast.py#L348-L355

Changing `r = result.ravel()` to `r = np.ravel(result)` might be sufficient (assuming this won't dispatch to the method), or otherwise `r = np.asarray(result).ravel()` (we know at this point we have a numpy dtyped Series, so `np.asarray(..)` is cheap)

In theory we should not call this method with a Series though, but with an array (or, the type annotation is wrong) > Thanks for your answer, Should I replace the internal usage of this function ?

Yes.

> In theory we should not call this method with a Series though, but with an array (or, the type annotation is wrong)

Agreed. This pull request is stale because it has been open for thirty days with no activity. Please [update](https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/development/contributing.html#updating-your-pull-request) and respond to this comment if you're still interested in working on this. Thanks for the pull request, but it appears to have gone stale. If interested in continuing, please merge in the main branch, address any review comments and/or failing tests, and we can reopen.