16

As we know, currently we don't have precise reason for closing a question as off-topic, but I would like users to suggest precise description for marking a question as off-topic, this will help the users understand better that his question was closed for what reason, and we can add those reasons to ...

enter image description here

For example, we can have a pre defined close vote reason like

Questions asking for Political and Scientific reasons are considered as off-topic

Now obviously that's a lousy statement to use as a close reason on the main site as it is not well descriptive and also, not that precise.

So I would like some user inputs over this, but before you draft your off-topic reasons, I would like users to refer questions on meta with the tag

Note: These reasons won't be accepted unless discussed with higher authority, but feel free to share your off-topic close reasons.

EDIT (Request Completed):

Here are the currently available Off-topic Close Reasons (as of 11-Jan-2017):

enter image description here

0

6 Answers 6

Reset to default
8

Personal advice question are considered off-topic here. See : Related meta post for details.

7

Political question and Scientific explanation questions are off-topic here. See : Related meta post for details.

3

Any hypothetical question can be marked as off-topic.

For example: What would have happened if Lord Rama had not left Seeta maata after hearing the words of a washerman?
The answer would mark personal opinions as given in one of the previous answers.

3
  • I do agree with it but i suggest to make it bit better written for usage in live.
    – Ankit Sharma
    Feb 5, 2016 at 14:21
  • Yes, but what's already happened cannot be changed.
    – ABcDexter
    Feb 5, 2016 at 15:37
  • Nothing is written in stones yet :)
    – Ankit Sharma
    Feb 5, 2016 at 17:29
2

Questions that ask for shopping recommendations (e.g buying books from Amazon) are off topic.

2
  • Why? If someone asks for Chandogya Upanishad with Adi Shankara commentary then what is wrong with it? In Stack overflow also, any tool no matter how small, even if it is remotely related to programming is considered on topic.
    – Pinakin
    Jan 17, 2017 at 10:48
  • @ChinmaySarupria I'm not talking about book-recommendation which is on-topic obviously. I'm talking about shopping recommendation like where can I buy or purchase the book...
    – Pandya Mod
    Jan 17, 2017 at 12:48
-4

The language used in this question seems to be offensive or hurting public sentiments.

10
  • 2
    Unless you define "public sentiment", any point in a religion as vast as Hinduism is bound to hurt somebody. No, I do not recommend this.
    – Emacs User
    Jul 23, 2015 at 22:57
  • @EmacsUser I understand your point, but I quoted this to avoid any use of abusive/foul language, etc in any regards. I haven't till now seen any such message here yet but as we were framing messages so just thought of on what reason will we close a question if it uses abusive/foul language, etc.
    – Aby
    Jul 24, 2015 at 7:07
  • had you said abusive instead of offensive language, sure i can see working something out in the context of overall abusive standards common to all SX websites. But you used offensive, which is debatable. And in the context of an aggrieved third party, i.e. public sentiments, clearly arbitrary whether it is abusive or offensive.
    – Emacs User
    Jul 24, 2015 at 15:41
  • @EmacsUser, I just tried to use better words than using the word 'abusive'. Also, since this site is a religion specific site so writing abusive about Gods, Religion, etc will hurt public sentiments. I just suggested what I think could be helpful. I leave it to mods and community owners to decide whether they want it or not.
    – Aby
    Jul 25, 2015 at 10:30
  • how can it be helpful if you expanded the offended to include third parties? How can it be helpful if the aggrieved can be expanded to include the entire public? How can it be helpful if you expanded harm to include mere sentiment and not any tangible harm? How can it be helpful if you leave it to some arbitrary moderator(s) to decide which writing is abusive?
    – Emacs User
    Jul 25, 2015 at 13:44
  • @EmacsUer, tell me if someone abuses Gods, religion who will be offened, the person who has made such comments, Gods or the people who believe in that specific God, religion who is reading that comment. Obviously, First person won't be as he is the writer, Second person God also obviously will not complain, its the 3rd party that will be offended and in order to not have a fight and keep the community clean, sometimes it is better to close such queations or ask to modify words
    – Aby
    Jul 25, 2015 at 18:23
  • Religion is something which is very sensitive in these days and is prone to raise communal tensions if proper words are not used. Maybe this will not harm anything tangible when it is written but if tension rises between groups then it leads to fights and communal tensions which will lead to harm in tangible mode also. Charlie Hebdo is the latest example I can think of now, there are many others.
    – Aby
    Jul 25, 2015 at 18:29
  • Define abuse? Define clean? I make a statement in ignorance and you want to escalate it to an offense to an entire population of followers who were never in the discussion in the first place. That's how fatwas get started. That's how cartoons beget wars. That's how you curtail free speech and free exchange of ideas. Your idea has never been helpful at any stage, to anyone, for any reason. It was dangerous at the outset and I want to disabuse the notion that people like you think a community needs cleaning. The last thing we need is closing of questions on a open forum to discover the truths.
    – Emacs User
    Jul 25, 2015 at 18:38
  • First of all, taking your example, if lets say i have clicked on cIose, the question wont be closed until it has 5 votes. Moreover, my point is about writing better words instead of writing abusive. Freedom of speech doesn't mean people should start abusing each other publicly. With powers comes responsibility. I believe, people should be careful enough to use better words while conveying their feelings. If 5, 10 or mods, etc whoever are entitled to decide, make a common decision then that should be acceptable to everyone. This is the same thing done in case of other closing reasons too.
    – Aby
    Jul 25, 2015 at 20:39
  • @EmacsUser On meta, feel free to use vote to show what you support and what you don't . Final votes on meta also help in determining the final decision, comments are too temporary.
    – Ankit Sharma
    Feb 5, 2016 at 12:55
-5

I suggest the following close reason:

  • This question belongs to Buddhism.stackexchange.com

Though there is "This question belongs to another site on Stack Exchange Network". I think having Buddhism religion as a close reason would be more specific as Hinduism and Buddhism are related.

4
  • 1
    I was thinking for a migration option, migrate to -> buddhism, christianity, jaduaism, islam but again, if we get comparison question, people may close to migrate..
    – Mr. Alien
    Jul 11, 2014 at 9:39
  • @Mr.Alien I agree but if the question is about comparison (mainly with non-related religions) then it should be closed as out of scope as mentioned by Senshin.
    – Mr_Green
    Jul 11, 2014 at 9:50
  • @Mr.Alien for normal user, migration option is only for graduated site
    – Ankit Sharma
    Jul 11, 2014 at 10:29
  • 2
    @Mr_Green What Ankit said - migration options (besides to a site's own meta) only can be added to the close menu by the SE staff, and they only do that for graduated sites. In any case, I do not anticipate Buddhism being a common migration target from this site, given that there is no history of this being an issue (thus far), and most people have a good idea of what is considered Hindu and what is considered Buddhist (the only real gray area I can think of is the person of the Buddha himself).
    – senshin
    Jul 11, 2014 at 10:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .