While reading the question
I see this now closed - after almost 4 years in "open" existence (let's ignore the very short closed for "primarily opinion based period)- with two answers posted, and the stated close reason now:
put on hold as off-topic […] 3 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is too basic; it can be definitively answered by a single link to the relevant topic on Wikipedia or another standard reference source. If you are instead questioning the correctness of a reference source, please edit the post to supply a link and explain what you find unclear, or why you believe it to be wrong or incomplete." (list of five users, incl one mod)
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Well, I quite fundamentally disagree with this.
The recent edit to the question was in my opinion quite superfluous but it didn't change the question to now being off-topic. If the edit would cause this, it has to be rolled back.
The question quality is far from stellar. I further would now still agree to the first round of closing, that is, solely to the reason given: that answers will be quite heavily opinion based. But I wouldn't count that as a valid close reason either, since on SE there is bad subjective and good subjective. Reasoned opinion based answers that argue with valid data points and references are fine with me. That should really be a standard approach here. But enough of that bickering about the example in details.
The problem I see here is that we close a question (while often it's said that this is frowned upon if there are answers posted, btw) with such a reason given.
This question is in my opinion very far from too basic. It is a very complicated topic with very different schools of thought and varying approaches.
On the other hand, if it is so much "too basic":
- Why aren't there answers that pick the easy fruit and answer it properly?
- Why isn't there a comment indicating which single Wikipedia or definitive reference source answers this?
Neither do I see a comment explaining which single resource is meant with the close reason, nor do I get a satisfactory result if I put this question into a search engine.
Note: I do not want to argue over the merits of the question or the deficiencies of the answers. This is not about observing a 'wrong close reason' (but: it is wrong in this case). This is also not about the particular question as such. It is a mere example of the "single link" explaining the close reason better missing from the thread.
Shouldn't we strive to provide at least a comment that actually gives the
single link to the relevant topic on Wikipedia or another standard reference source.
before the first "too basic" vote goes up? Or at least after the fifth rolled in?
I am aware that this has a big problem: it calls basically for "a link only answer in comments." But for once this should also avoid a few things:
- it provides common ground for would be close/leave-open voters
- it explains the close reason better
- there are different search engines out there, and especially Google gives strange results (non reproducible, geo censored, alterations based on cookies etc), so the first few links of any given search with defined search terms aren't guaranteed to give the same results for everyone. Then it's often a matter of choosing the right search terms
- ideally it should not just 'answer' the question, but give further hints on how to improve the question?
From memory, the most popular way to avoid "answering" the question in comments seems to be to re-phrase that 'answer' as "Isn't that fully addressed in [WP-link]?"
On this: Why did Oliver Cromwell ban Christmas in 1644? I tried the proposed approach above (gving the single link), but since I as well really saw no way to improve this out of actual "too basic" territory, I stopped short before requesting more from OP. That there is now an "answer-as-comment" is a detriment. Still hopig for an idea that finds workable common ground for this.