3
$\begingroup$

In the process of flagging this question for migration to another site outside the world-building realm, I discovered that I could only flag it for migration to Meta. I understand my reputation may be the reason why; if so, I would appreciate it if either

  • the menu description was written so as not to mislead me into believing I'm not supposed to migrate to any site other than Meta.WB,
  • the ability to migrate to other sites than Meta.WB was given to all users who have the ability to flag questions.
|
$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

That's not due to your reputation; it's because we haven't defined any other migration paths.

When we graduated last November we gained access to custom migration paths, and there was some discussion about which ones to set up. At the time we didn't have a lot of outbound migrations and ended up not defining any. The better part of a year later, it might be time to revisit that discussion. (If so I suggest a new meta question with updated stats.)

A site shouldn't have more than two or three migration targets besides its own meta; we can't, and shouldn't, add the 8-10 sites that have had some migrations.

Meanwhile, you can use a custom flag or, better yet, a comment (so others can see it) to suggest another site. Do make sure the question is off-topic here; if a question is on-topic here and somewhere else, we'll keep it because this is where the OP asked it. Migration is only for questions that we would close as off-topic.

|
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "... it might be time to revisit that discussion." Yes, let's do that. $\endgroup$ – cobaltduck Aug 18 '16 at 20:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Migration is only for questions that we would close as off-topic." ...or questions that have been closed as off topic. A closed question may be a candidate for migration, if it's likely to be well-received elsewhere. $\endgroup$ – a CVn Jul 3 '17 at 8:40
  • $\begingroup$ Did we ever actually revisit the issue of which migration paths to have? $\endgroup$ – a CVn Jul 3 '17 at 8:40
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelKjörling not to the best of my knowledge. I'd say it calls for a new meta discussion (linking to the old one, which was from 2015 and has locked-in votes). $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Jul 3 '17 at 14:57
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelKjörling I think it is worth looking at, considering I just tried it with this question and got the same result. I would imagine Physics.SE at least should be in there as we seem to get a few straight up physics questions that could be migrated there. $\endgroup$ – adaliabooks Jul 4 '17 at 12:09
3
$\begingroup$

Most of the migrations are rejected or get closed very quickly. The consensus was that it was not worth it to have migration paths. Also, many of these questions show little effort and don't meet the quality standard of the Stack Exchange. These questions should be closed and kept here instead of sending them to other sites, where they will be closed anyway. Bad questions should not be migrated because it's usually sent back here anyway.

Good questions that need migration can be flagged for moderator attention. They can deal with this on a case by case basis.

By the way, maybe we should get rid of the WB Meta migration path since people can move off topic questions here. It happened a few times already. I can't blame people because the first time I voted to move a question here. Since it was the only choice, I supposed it was okay at the time.

|
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure I totally agree with the idea that we should have no migration paths; I've seen several questions which I feel would be much better suited to Physics or Astronomy.

This subject feeds in again to the idea of whats on topic and whats not and the scope of this site. Personally I feel that if it is a "how does this work based on reality/science" It probably belongs on one of the other sites, where as "if I extrapolate into the unknown based on reality/science" it belongs here.

|
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "I've seen several questions which I feel would be much better suited to Physics or Astronomy." But do Physics or Astronomy agree? We have a bad track record with moderator-assisted migrations (which you can initiate by flagging the question and entering a custom reason like "Should be on Astronomy, because ..."). They get closed frequently. That would only get worse if people could just vote them. And I think your criteria is overly restrictive. There should be some overlap. Some questions should be askable there or here. A strict limitation is likely to leave orphans. $\endgroup$ – Brythan Aug 20 '16 at 1:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Brythan no I definatly agree that some or even most "overlap" is fine, but when I see: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/52246/… ... which is basically asking a physics question, I'm sorta like.... what does this have to do with world building at all? $\endgroup$ – Marky Aug 20 '16 at 2:12
  • $\begingroup$ I don't find that question to be even borderline. It's clearly on the worldbuilding side. It may be a weak worldbuilding question, but it's nowhere close to being a physics question. Reread it as "How do I have realistic Star Wars blasters in my world?" That's informed by physics, but it is not itself a physics question. Physics would toss that as "not realistic". Even by your standard, it's clearly this side. It's unknown how a Star Wars blaster would work, since we don't have any such thing. Leaving us to extrapolate. $\endgroup$ – Brythan Aug 20 '16 at 15:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Brythan it could totally be like you say, for sure, except for the part where the actual question is asking "is this possible" like they want a real world reasoning/explanation path. If they asked instead something like "how do I explain this so my readers will buy it" then it's reasonable. $\endgroup$ – Marky Aug 20 '16 at 16:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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