4

http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/14187/vi-vim-and-vixens is currently marked as "on hold" pending a discussion on meta. Given the link embedded in that message, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that I would see a justification of that decision on the far side of the link.

I would argue that it is the responsibility of the relative handful of people who set a proposal as a duplicate to prime exactly that discussion on meta. (and marked as feature request for that reason) Vim questions: do they belong to Stack Overflow or Super User? is a start of A discussion, but it predates the current stack exchange model.

I'd like to argue my point of view about the vim site, but it seems to me that there's something not quite right about even needing to do that at this point. (EDIT: I see the following is not accurate, I had misunderstood the source of the 'duplicate' mark, which I think just makes my point above stronger) Are we seriously breaking the area51 system and submitting new sites essentially to a vote of active meta.SO users, rather than the clarification/committing/beta system advertised on area51 itself?

|improve this question
4

This is covered in

http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/factionalism-site-or-tag/

Essentially, we don't believe a reasonable case can be made that the questions in the proposal would actually be closed as off-topic on existing sites.

But read the blog post for more details.

|improve this answer
  • Charming... fix the link... essentially this justification means you're advertising several incompatible systems for how area51 works. – user118150 Sep 29 '10 at 22:30
  • 3
    @user, well sometimes people suggest websites that just won't be viable. I see no reason to have such a specific site. – jjnguy Sep 29 '10 at 22:36
  • 7
    Since the above 'may no longer be edited' you get another comment. Essentially I would like the link in the 'duplicate' template on area51 to actually link to the reason for the thing being marked as duplicate (either to that exact blog post, or... even better... a meta question/thread that contains an explanation and probably a link). Do understand, I actually agree with your decision, but the 'go to meta and figure out for yourself why it's closed' is really crappy. – user118150 Sep 29 '10 at 22:38
  • @user, that makes sense. I can agree with that point. – jjnguy Sep 29 '10 at 22:40
  • 1
    @user the message is now linked to the blog post, and to this thread – Emmett Sep 30 '10 at 15:31

You must log in to answer this question.

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