I'm the person Nosajimiki discussed the issue with on behalf of the linked question.
The idea of what "too story-based" means has been hashed out on this site for years. If I recall correctly, Monica Ciello once explained that there was an early discussion about making a separate Stack for storybuilding questions — but it was abandoned because there's no way on the planet to meet Stack Exchange's expectations for objectivity.
Some of the discussions I've personally participated in on this subject include:
There is also the tried-and-true post linked in the VTC option:
These are all the results of years of debate and discussion that started long before I joined the site. While everyone has admitted that there will forever be a grey area between worldbuilding and storybuilding, it has (IMO) generally been narrowed down to an idea that I've regularly expressed as follows:
Worldbuilding (on-topic) is the development and consistent use of the rules and systems of a fictional world of your own creation wherein an infinite number of stories can be told. Storybuilding (off-topic) concerns circumstances, plot, and character actions and choices.
This particular discussion focused on the use of the word circumstances. It was (and continues to be) my opinion that the linked question was asking for a circumstance or series of circumstances that would justify a condition of the story (Soldiers in a WWI-technology time period are reduced to using medieval-era technology).
- What technology exists is a worldbuilding question.
- How that tech can be applied or used is a worldbuiliding question.
- The nature of the political structures and demographics are, too.
But the site has consistently closed questions about how to equip soldiers. That's because the question is story-based — the author can come up with a nearly infinite number of ways to justify the use of any weapon.
And that's what the linked question is, a "how to justify the use of this weapon" question. It's a question about circumstances, which are a function of the story, not a function of the world.
Let's consider an alternative
Had the OP asked, "what is it about a WWI machine-gun that could be compromised to justify forcing my soldiers to start using swords?" we have a different context. That would be an application-of-technology question. Example answers could include the nation ran out of gunpowder (or a constituent chemical) or ran out of metal. Or the use of some form of trench-warfare gas caused the thin springs to disintegrate.
But the moment you ask, "OK, how would the nation run out of gunpowder?" you're back to a storybuilding question.
Worldbuilding must be true both before and after the story — otherwise it's storybuilding
What many post authors don't understand is that the rules and systems of a fictional world must exist above any story. To simplify the idea: they must predate and postdate the story (instances where this isn't true will be obvious, but you'll see what I mean).
A worldbuilding rule is that the world has no sulfur and therefore cannot create gunpowder using it.
A storybuilding rule is that insurgents blew up the warehouse storing the nation's strategic supply of sulfur.
A worldbuilding rule is that chemistry exists that can be exploited in the form of a gas grenade that will weaken gunmetal.
A storybuilding rule is how that grenade is used on the battlefield, when, and why.
Unfortunately, like many new authors on this site, the OP was more interested in idea-fishing than in considering the rules and intent of this site. The OP (to my knowledge, I haven't looked recently) has not edited the question to restrict responses to only worldbuilding contexts.
Perfection is impossible. No matter what the exact text of the VTC definition, if people refuse to click the link and read the explanation, there will always be someone who is confused or under-educated by the definition. I therefore do not believe it need be changed.