8

As it is now, here is the content of a "Too Localized" close reason:

closed as too localized by MrHen, Robusto, JSBangs, Dusty, F'x 1 hour ago

This question is unlikely to ever help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet.

We happen to care about small geographic areas if they speak their own dialect of English and specific moments in time may also be a little misleading given how many etymology questions we see. Is it possible (or advisable) to have this reason slightly reworded to more directly address the problem we are trying to solve by closing Too Narrow questions?

4

I think "small geographic area" still applies to EL&U.
If somebody asks the meaning of a phrase that comes out to be used only from their neighborhood, then I think that the question could be considered too localized because relevant to a small geographic area.

I don't think that closing reason needs to be rephrased; it seems to explain exactly what the reason of closing the question is.

2

This style of rewording is more what I have in mind:

closed as too localized by MrHen, Robusto, JSBangs, Dusty, F'x 1 hour ago

This question is unlikely to ever help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small subset of usage, a specific circumstance, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet.

Examples of Too Localized questions:

  • What name should I use for this programming function? (Small subset of usage)
  • How should I propose to my wife? (Specific circumstance)
  • How should I address a coworker who used to be my boss? (Narrow situation)

Wording is, naturally, open for suggestions but hopefully this will help with the point I was trying to make. The close reason should help us identify why the question is being closed. "Geography" is mostly irrelevant with regards to question legitimacy. Likewise, "time" isn't really helpful. I am not so much suggesting that they hurt but rather that Too Localized is not a particularly useful close reason.

  • Sounds good to me. One has to bear in mind that we're not here discussing exact specific terms with some kind of legal definition status. The precise interpretation is up to each individual who chooses to use that 'reason code'. But, yes - small subset of usage is an improvement. And Localized already implies a spatial context (if you want it to lol). – FumbleFingers Jun 4 '11 at 3:08
1

I would suggest that the questions about Chop Gate here and Leicester here are about as geographically localised as one could wish for, but have been well-accepted by the community. This question about Arjmand here hasn't but that is probably because it isn't an English word rather than for the smallness of the place. So I'm not sure small geographic region is quite on target; Chop Gate is about as small a geographic region as one could wish for, consisting of half-a-dozen houses and a pub.

  • But people talk about the place (and so need to know how to pronounce it) over a wider area. How do I distinguish a Chop Gate accent? would be Too Localised, in my opinion. – Tim Lymington supports Monica Sep 3 '12 at 12:16
0

So I take it that you -don't- want to close questions that concern English language concerns arising from small geographic areas? I think you're considering that exclusion too literally. Most people (who can close) don't consider questions like how to pronounce Chop Gate or Leicester 'too localized' because they're discussing pronunciation that affects -many people-, not necessarily those that live in those locations.

0

I agree that re-wording the reason is prudent. It may be obvious to us that this reason doesn't apply to the Chop Gate and similar questions (because it "affects many people," or in my mind, more realistically, it's just interesting), but I don't think it would be obvious to a newcomer. That may discourage some users from posting really unique questions that would be acceptable and intriguing.

  • But so far as I can see the only upvote not in favour of the status quo is mine for @MrHen's own perfectly good suggestion. So if you agree re-wording the reason is prudent, why didn't you either upvote it or suggest something yourself? – FumbleFingers Jun 4 '11 at 3:11
  • @FumbleFingers MrHen's suggestion came after mine, so I hadn't seen it, therefore could not upvote it. But thanks for supporting MrHen's suggestion. – Kit Z. Fox Jun 4 '11 at 12:12
  • I must be a bit thick. There's still only my vote against @MrHen's answer. You've obviously been back here to respond to me, so why isn't there another upvote (i.e. - yours)? – FumbleFingers Jun 4 '11 at 14:21
  • @FumbleFingers Indeed you must be thick if you honestly think I owe you an explanation. – Kit Z. Fox Jun 4 '11 at 18:14
  • Don't be silly. You don't owe me anything. I was intrigued, but I don't have to be. – FumbleFingers Jun 5 '11 at 13:57
0

It is up for us to decide what a small geographic area or a specific moment in time means. For example, if someone were to ask a question about the usage of a word coined by a friend and never used again, that would probably qualify as too localized. Similarly, we can choose to say that a small borough is not a small geographic area, but rather a fairly medium-sized one, as far as the English language is concerned (small might be a single family, or an individual; large may be a urban city, and significant might be a country).

In addition, the technical implementation of close reasons make it extremely improbable that we'd get a modified text for any specific close reason, as they are shared between all sites.

You must log in to answer this question.

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