I finally edited the help section to update the What topics can I ask about here section. This was largely a copy/paste from the Area 51 proposal with some minor changes, such as strongly emphasizing that medical advice questions are off topic.

Could I please get a review of these changes with suggestions, corrections, etc?

EDIT: The tour section has now also been updated.

| |

I do not know the restrictions the system enforces on length etc. The question here might benefit from making those explicit here.

It would be nice to link specific parts from the new document to other relevant pages. Perhaps here on meta? Those parts could perhaps be expanded and explained a bit more for clarity.

I guess that consequences for being off-topic (down-voted, closed etc.) might be made explicit on that page as well.

A clash of style may be that bold font is ugly, but needed for the words off topic, and maybe others?

There are remnants of "Health" left. ("If your question is not specifically on-topic for health.SE,")

The redirector might be re-phrased from > Questions that could be seen to be on-topic but are best suited elsewhere:

to: "Questions that could be seen to be on-topic but are (very?) probably best suited elsewhere:"

More inspiration from other sites:

Since Skeptics links to us, we might also link back to them. After finding the right words for it.

Generally, I think that all links to other sites might be directed to the SE-site/help/on-topic pages. That's double service: those looking for that page save on clicks and loads, those jumping into asking are reminded of the help-pages first.

Like the also related:

(Strike thru relates to parts already fixed.)

| |
  • 1
    Good catch on the remnant of Health.SE. I also asked the Skeptics mods to correct the name on their site. – Carey Gregory Nov 28 '18 at 15:33
  • 3
    As for the style, bold may be ugly but I'm closing a half dozen medical advice questions a day so I think it needs to be as bold as it can be. – Carey Gregory Nov 28 '18 at 15:39
  • @CareyGregory Given the recent quick med history migration (fallopian tubes, for which case I agree with the migration): 1. I thought med-history was discussed as also in topic in principle (or have I missed sth, do we need more discussion on this?) 2. If it's now squarely offtopic, then another link might be in order (we are the best connected site now?) – LаngLаngС Dec 5 '18 at 11:15
  • I don't recall med history being discussed, but I haven't really looked. I'm okay with med history questions being allowed, but I just thought that one was sure to get a good answer in history and maybe not here. – Carey Gregory Dec 5 '18 at 15:07
  • @CareyGregory As stated, that one was perfectly fine to migrate IMO (with the help-section reason "probably better served…") ;) . Just the language in the comment seems to suggest to me that I missed whether it*s now off or on. & the help section might then benefit from another outgoing link (Well, then probably HSM as well). I can't find it right now, but seem to remember that DocWhom and Narusan were voicing opinions on it. Must have been in one of those 'oh so searchable' chats. – LаngLаngС Dec 5 '18 at 15:19
  • I'll add links to History and/or HSM once I've read both their help sections and have a clear understanding of the difference. I would imagine HSM is the more likely choice for most SciMed history questions. – Carey Gregory Dec 5 '18 at 16:37
  • @CareyGregory Given their pattern of Q&As HSM would benefit from such migrations, much, more than H:SE. But if we choose both, then I'd suggest to lump them together in our help-document. It will be a judgement-call for migrations anyway and H:SE has the larger user base. For our documentation it suffices that users see them both to consider? – LаngLаngС Dec 5 '18 at 16:42
  • 1
    Links to HSM and History added. – Carey Gregory Dec 6 '18 at 3:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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