Scope and wording of "minimal understanding of the problem" close category [duplicate]

Question

It seems to me that the subject category comprehends not only "understanding of the problem" but also "effort to solve". These both seem like valid reasons to close, but it seems odd to bundle them and even odder to bundle them under a bold-formatted name (i.e. minimum understanding of the problem) that comprehends only one element.

The situation is further muddied by the fact that people seem to also use this category for situations where they feel the poster has not demonstrated sufficient competence in their efforts to solve the problem.

Perhaps the people who wrote this category are thinking of "problem" in the broader sense of "problem and the associated solution space"?

In any event, my question is whether this category (including the bolding) should:

1. Remain as is?
2. Be reworded/rebolded to more accurately reflect the existing scope?
3. Be otherwise refactored?

Update in response to close votes: This question is different than Close reason emphasis is wrong because the latter only addresses the question of emphasis/bolding whereas this question raises questions of wording/semantics and whether to refactor the category (e.g. split out some of the content into other categories).

For example, this question also covers:

• What is meant by "problem" in the phrase "understanding the problem"? Does it refer to just surface level symptoms, what's causing the symptoms, what's required to address the cause? Should we use more specific language?emphasized text
• Which, if any, of these things is really a requirement given the de facto standard or what is acceptable on SO, where one or more of these things is commonly absent in unclosed questions.
• Should demonstrated understanding/competence in the solution space be in a separate category from demonstrated understanding of the symptoms and/or causes of those symptoms (i.e. what I would consider "the problem")?

Answer 1

Let's look at the entire close reason, not just some specific wording out of context:

Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist.

OK, now let's break it down.

1. Asking for code

   This phrase was added by SE after they identified certain patterns of mis-use. It was not vetted by the community, but given the nature of the site (by coders, for coders), it seems logical to include this caveat. The close reason is about asking for code, not about asking for other things.

2. must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved

   This phrase is a proxy for "What have you tried?" As the Help Center states, "Sharing your research helps everyone. Tell us what you found and why it didn’t meet your needs. This demonstrates that you’ve taken the time to try to help yourself, it saves us from reiterating obvious answers, and above all, it helps you get a more specific and relevant answer!"

   This weeds out theicanhazcodez folks, because people who just ask for code without stating what they have tried do not demonstrate an understanding of the problem they are trying to solve.

3. Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results

   Many times, we just get "It didn't work." That doesn't tell us anything. We need to know what they tried, the results they got, and the results they actually want. This is basically the minimum information we need from anyone to formulate a relevant answer.

4. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist

   This is Jon Skeet's excellent guidance on how to write a good question. Everything that a user needs to know to make their questions work is there.