Here's a close notice from a question that was closed with multiple off-topic (community-specific) close reasons, relating to only one specific network site and no longer reproducible:

Close notice with two reasons

(For context, a given community-specific reason shows on a question if two or more users or a moderator voted for it, meaning that if two voters picked one and 2-3 others or a moderator picked another, both will show.)

The "site-specific" close reason was recently revamped to use the new five-field system, where different text is shown in the body of the notice for post authors (how to fix one's own question) and privileged users (how to help the author). In the case where only one community-specific reason is shown, the heading line at the top will get its text from a third one of those five fields, which in this case is:

This question is only applicable to one specific site on the Stack Exchange network. It is not currently accepting answers.

For the case where there are multiple reasons, or where the single reason hasn't yet been revamped to use the new five-field system (or never will be because it's a retired - no longer selectable - reason), the heading will default to a generic "This question is off-topic" notice.

In many cases, the post author guidance or privileged guidance is phrased to depend on this heading line for context, and doesn't make sense without it, such as the privileged user guidance for the "site-specific" reason here. This can, however, create out-of-context, seemingly nonsensical explanations if the notice doesn't show the heading line, such as if there are multiple reasons. Basically, it's describing how to fix a problem, but not giving any info as to what the problem is.

To solve this problem, I propose that if a question is closed for multiple community-specific reasons, the heading line should be shown in the bullet for each revamped reason, in a paragraph above the post author guidance or privileged user guidance. Here's a mockup:


(The "no longer reproducible" reason has also been revamped, but the text for the guidance fields was simply copied from the original one-field reason. I've left it as is so it can reflect as a mockup for both a revamped reason and a non-revamped reason.)

I know that some talk about changing how questions with multiple reasons are shown will inevitably come up, so I'll address it now. I think it's important to retain the ability to have multiple reasons, especially since multiple can apply to one question. As an example, the above notice is taken from a question reporting an ephemeral issue with Stack Overflow Careers: it's both no longer reproducible (on SO), and site-specific to SO. Also, even if things are later changed for future closures, what about earlier closures?

  • 1
  • This was requested a dozen years ago: Distinguish close votes by reason and reasked a half dozen years ago: meta.stackexchange.com/a/361174/282094 but deferred 18 months ago.
    – Rob
    Commented Nov 14, 2022 at 3:43
  • 1
    @Rob This request is about an entirely new functionality introduced long after the requests you linked were filed. The multiple-field system I mention in this request didn't exist at the time. It seems you're confusing this question as asking for the names of close voters of different reasons to be shown. This is not the thing being asked for here; this is asking for the new field containing the short description of an off-topic close reason to always be shown even if the question was closed with multiple such reasons. Commented Nov 14, 2022 at 4:49
  • That's correct, updating the old requests to the new reasons make sense, your request is a much watered down ask of previous superior Feature Requests to annunciate the reasons and users, so each is shown beside their vote; for priv users.
    – Rob
    Commented Nov 14, 2022 at 17:07

1 Answer 1


If the question no longer needs improvement to be worthy of answers then it should be re-opened.

If the question still needs improvement in order to warrant re-opening then I think the close reasons really only act as a guide to what type of edits may be required.

Consequently, I think if the close reasons lose some accuracy over time then a purist could currently vote to re-open, then later vote to close with a more accurate reason.

However, I think a more pragmatic approach is simply to let the asker decide whether they want to invest time trying to get their question reopened using whatever guidance they already have about its possible shortcomings.

There are some bugs which are not worth fixing and I think this is one of them.

  • 1
    What about recent such closures? Commented Jan 23, 2022 at 3:36
  • @SonictheAnti-NewVariant-hog When I said "lose some accuracy over time" I mean over any, even a short, time period.
    – PolyGeo
    Commented Jan 23, 2022 at 4:20

You must log in to answer this question.

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