19

This can be increased, but only up to a maximum of 35 characters. This means zen-and-the-art-of-motorcycle-maintenance is right out. I increased the allowed length to 32, thus allowing zen-and-art-of-motorcycle-maint, which should be a little bit easier to recognize. This sort of compromise is likely to be common... Thus, whenever possible, try to work the ...


10

You have lots of different questions here; I'll try to address each one. Disclaimer: This is mostly just what I do, and may not be representative of everyone. Does accepting an answer discourage people from writing new answers? A little. If I feel like I have something that the answerer missed, I'll leave a comment and let them add it. If they don't, or if ...


9

It's really cool that you want to do this, but unfortunately we can't let you use the site logo for the account. The reasoning comes down to the way current trademark rules work. I won't belabor that point since you're clearly already familiar with our trademark guidance page. We absolutely support the idea of the initiative, though! For example, if and ...


8

SE doesn't support markdown in question titles. That includes on sites like Science Fiction & Fantasy or Movies & TV where it would be very useful given the subject matter of the site. I doubt they're going to make an exception for us. In the meantime, you can always use some workaround, or even leave the title without any special marks around it. ...


7

I don't think we need to change it. Let's have a look at the wording of the "primarily opinion-based" close reason, which appears in the close banner on every question put on hold for this reason: Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, ...


7

From my experience on SFF I can only say that accepted answers only encouraged me to look at questions. I was curious what people had written about a topic (provided the topic was interesting to me in the first place), and I had even written some new answers afterwards. Acceptance doesn't mean anything - that is, it means that the asker thinks he'd got the ...


7

I understand the problem (I've also experienced it, as a new user in public beta), but I don't think that a [novel] tag is the solution. It has the potential to get really messy, and is not in keeping with the general purpose of tags. As long as this site is new enough to retain "beta" status, there is an intentionally low(ered) reputation required to create ...


7

I don't see this as either doable or useful. It isn't doable because titles are sent through many communication channels, all of which would need to be adapted to support formatting. Many of these channels don't support formatting at all, for example various kinds of newsfeeds. It isn't useful because there's a widespread convention of using quotation ...


7

Example question As noted by @Hamlet in comments, there are currently no possibilities available for an example question for this site. Let's keep monitoring this Data.SE query so that we can spot if one appears. Unfortunately, the criteria for choosing example questions aren't really optimal for sites such as Literature. As clarified on main meta, the ...


6

No, we should not encourage the use of spoiler markup (the type described in Gallifreyan's answer) because spoiler markup is inaccessible to keyboard users. This includes both blind users (who obviously don't use a mouse because they can't see the mouse pointer) and motor-impaired users who can't use a mouse or similar pointing device (a group that is larger ...


5

Honestly, this is a problem on many SE sites. On main meta, What algorithm does Stack Exchange use to determine if a question may be subjective? tells us that the words Best, Worst, Hardest, You, Your, Favo[u]rite are what triggers the automatic warning. Clearly there could be many questions on many SEs which have titles containing words like "you" and yet ...


5

What's wrong with "primarily opinion-based"? Let me play devil's advocate for a moment here. Do we really need to change the existing close reason? Yes, many of our good questions are subjective and may not have a single correct answer, but the close reason doesn't say "opinion-based": it says "primarily opinion-based". Some questions ARE more opinion-based ...


4

Assuming I understand you correctly, you're referring to the following feature, where the text is initially hidden and one needs to hover over/click on it to reveal it: This is achieved by starting a line with >!, not dissimilar to how a blockquote is generated. Regarding the use of spoilers, we've discussed this before: Should we assume that questions ...


4

Not worth the trouble at this point. Standard migration paths are used when there are so many questions being migrated from site A to site B that it's worth getting the community of site A to help the moderators to manage the workload. At this point, with a total of 2-5 questions per day and 8 questions migrated away in the entire history of the site, we're ...


3

I suggest: Please look around to see if your question has been asked before. If you already know the answer, it’s also OK to ask and answer your own question. Unfortunately, we haven't been around for that long and therefore don't have an authoritative definition of what is and what isn't on-topic. Given the extensive philosophical debate over what counts ...


3

You're already doing the right thing here by creating tag wikis for tags that matter to you. For perspective: in the vast majority of cases, most tags, as well as the most useful tags, will be about things that have more than one question asked about them, so this entire discussion here is about an edge case. If you want to have a site policy about keeping ...


2

I actually think that the text of the old "Not Constructive" close reason is a better fit for our site. As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If ...


1

This could be a good idea, but I think you chose the wrong part of it to tweak. The bit about "facts, references, or specific expertise" works just as well for our site as for any other. You proposed adding "quotes, textual evidence, contextualizing information", but all of this really comes under facts, references, or specific expertise. On the other hand,...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible