7

This question already has an answer here:

For duplicates that cross main sites, there exists this question. However, I think the rules might be different for meta. Is there a reason for not allowing cross-site duplicates on meta?

meta.SO seems to be the central point for certain Stack Exchange things, such as general policies. So, when a question like this one on Arqade meta comes up (or the same thing on mathematics, server fault, and super user), it would be nice to mark as duplicate of this meta.SO question. At the very least, if "linked", the cross-site duplicates should probably show up in the sidebar.

marked as duplicate by Werner, Monica Cellio, rene, Shadow The Princess Wizard discussion Nov 25 '15 at 7:05

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

8

It is an intentional decision that the individual metas are pretty much on their own and never have to rely on MSO. Establishing the concept of cross-site duplicates here would run against this principle.

The idea is that the user of unicorns.SE (or any other site) don't even have to know about the existence of some strange and somewhat hostile site called meta.stackoverflow.com. Their meta is meta.unicorns.com, and that is all they need to know or care about.

You could make an argument that this duplicates a lot of effort, and that is true. I think there would be some value in automatically copying the most important posts from MSO to all per-site metas, but I would strongly oppose making MSO the one canonical meta and closing anything else as a duplicate on MSO.

There are additional issues for some sites that deviate from the common SE rules in some aspects. The answers on MSO might simply be wrong for that specific site in such a case, closing as a cross-site duplicate would be very misleading there.

  • It just seems more confusing to spread out a centralized discussion. Perhaps meta.SO is a bad central location, I was just mentioning it since, as it stands now, that seems to be the way it is. Maybe a meta.stackexchange is a good idea, I don't know. I just think that for something that is common across all Stack Exchange sites (for example the "friend list" thing, there should be some central location that all other sites can participate in a discussion for. One great example is the questions that come with the recent changes to Stack Exchange. – David Starkey Mar 11 '14 at 21:25
  • 1
    @DavidStarkey meta.stackexchange is going to be created in the near future, that doesn't really change my argument. We shouldn't require users to know about yet another meta site, they should only have to care about their own meta. – Mad Scientist Mar 11 '14 at 21:26
  • But duplicating a major announcement seems odd. If I ask on Arqade "Where is feature X in the new format?", then that is something that could benefit all SE sites. If we copied that and that answer changes eventually, then all SE will need to update the answers. – David Starkey Mar 11 '14 at 21:29
  • @DavidStarkey That would be useful for the most important posts, and I have a feature request for something similar to that. But that should be solved in a way that avoids requiring users to follow two different meta sites. – Mad Scientist Mar 11 '14 at 21:31
  • I can agree with that, but I think it should avoid introducing duplicates. – David Starkey Mar 11 '14 at 21:34

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