text:
user134: Thought it is clear that those tags can be used for different things I think there is some overlapping.
reference-request and published-studies
Since a study can be used as a reference and a reference can be either a book based on some studies or only one study it seems clear that reference and a study can be the same thing.
reference-request and learning-methods
Learning methods in itself can be pretty vague and can refer to either a book, a collection of software or to learning techniques. On the other hand, reference overlaps the previous tags because the concept of reference overlaps the above-cited meanings of learning-methods save for the techniques part.
published-studies and learning-methods
Here I don't think there is any overlapping.

My conclusion is that reference-request overlaps with at least to tags. Thus I wonder if we had better not using it.
The learning-methods have already be given a tag guidance whereas the two others have not.
I would suggest the following tag guidance for published-studies:

Ask for published scientific studies which address the problematic asked by the question.

On the other hand, the vagueness in reference-request prevent me from giving a satisfying definition

user8: The overlap between reference-request and published-studies is partly my fault.
We'd been discussing dropping the studies tag on Meta, but we hadn't agreed on a replacement tag or general solution yet.
I liked bilbo_pengouin's suggestion of published-studies and I had a question to tag with it, so I used it.
A little bit after that, Gilles suggested using reference-request, which seems to be the standard on other SE sites, so that tag was put in place by a few people.
As with Meta discussions, I usually prefer to let a discussion ferment rather than accept the first decent answer to get a law in place. However the time wait on this kinda messed up how I chose the tags, so I've gone with the reference-request answer, and we can put that in place now.
At this point, it would be excellent to tag synonymise published-studies as a synonym of reference-request, however that's a CM-exclusive power until someone gets the rep (and tag rep) to do so.
I will go and edit all of the published-studies tags to use reference-request instead.

original_text:
[134:
Thought it is clear that those tags can be used for different things I think there is some overlapping.

reference-request and published-studies

Since a study can be used as a reference and a reference can be either a book based on some studies or only one study it seems clear that reference and a study can be the same thing.

reference-request and learning-methods

Learning methods in itself can be pretty vague and can refer to either a book, a collection of software or to learning techniques. On the other hand, reference overlaps the previous tags because the concept of reference overlaps the above-cited meanings of learning-methods save for the techniques part.

published-studies and learning-methods

Here I don't think there is any overlapping.

My conclusion is that reference-request overlaps with at least to tags. Thus I wonder if we had better not using it.

The learning-methods have already be given a tag guidance whereas the two others have not.

I would suggest the following tag guidance for published-studies:

Ask for published scientific studies which address the problematic asked by the question.

On the other hand, the vagueness in reference-request prevent me from giving a satisfying definition

, 8:
The overlap between reference-request and published-studies is partly my fault.

We'd been discussing dropping the studies tag on Meta, but we hadn't agreed on a replacement tag or general solution yet.

I liked bilbo_pengouin's suggestion of published-studies and I had a question to tag with it, so I used it.

A little bit after that, Gilles suggested using reference-request, which seems to be the standard on other SE sites, so that tag was put in place by a few people.

As with Meta discussions, I usually prefer to let a discussion ferment rather than accept the first decent answer to get a law in place. However the time wait on this kinda messed up how I chose the tags, so I've gone with the reference-request answer, and we can put that in place now.

At this point, it would be excellent to tag synonymise published-studies as a synonym of reference-request, however that's a CM-exclusive power until someone gets the rep (and tag rep) to do so.

I will go and edit all of the published-studies tags to use reference-request instead.

]

issue: hello hello


text:
user800: The question For a English Grammar Course, what should be included in the list below and what should be removed? was closed because, according to the three close voters, it "needs to be more focused". The question lists a long number of topics that would need to be covered in an envisioned English grammar course. It also describes the audience for this course: L2 learners in lower-upper secondary school who will be taking exams that focus a lot on grammar.
The close voters did not provide any specific reasons for their close votes, nor advice on how the question could be improved. Questions on teaching grammar are on topic on this site and I don't see how this question could be split up into smaller ones in a meaningful way, since the question is about a syllabus as a whole.
For these reasons, I am asking how the question can be improved. If not, I would like to see a justification for the close votes that is more meaningful than "lacking focus".

user3595: I am by no means an English teacher, though I do have teacher training on a different subject.
Some things that might help:

The course is aimed for some specific exams and presumably in a specific country or region. Naming this would give context to those who know about such matters. Is the course aimed for passing the exams (and maybe learning a bit of the language) or learning the language and thereby passing the exams, too?
Is there a lack of time when compared to content, as usual when teaching my field? How deeply is one intending to teach the content? For example, prepositions use could easily be added into example sentences that illustrate another point by adding a few words into an example sentence. Or one could have lessons devoted to practicing them.
A more abstract question about how to select grammar content for such a course might also be fruitful.

original_text:
[800:
The question For a English Grammar Course, what should be included in the list below and what should be removed? was closed because, according to the three close voters, it "needs to be more focused". The question lists a long number of topics that would need to be covered in an envisioned English grammar course. It also describes the audience for this course: L2 learners in lower-upper secondary school who will be taking exams that focus a lot on grammar.

The close voters did not provide any specific reasons for their close votes, nor advice on how the question could be improved. Questions on teaching grammar are on topic on this site and I don't see how this question could be split up into smaller ones in a meaningful way, since the question is about a syllabus as a whole.

For these reasons, I am asking how the question can be improved. If not, I would like to see a justification for the close votes that is more meaningful than "lacking focus".

, 3595:
I am by no means an English teacher, though I do have teacher training on a different subject.

Some things that might help:

The course is aimed for some specific exams and presumably in a specific country or region. Naming this would give context to those who know about such matters. Is the course aimed for passing the exams (and maybe learning a bit of the language) or learning the language and thereby passing the exams, too?

Is there a lack of time when compared to content, as usual when teaching my field? How deeply is one intending to teach the content? For example, prepositions use could easily be added into example sentences that illustrate another point by adding a few words into an example sentence. Or one could have lessons devoted to practicing them.

A more abstract question about how to select grammar content for such a course might also be fruitful.

]

issue: this is an issue


text:
user-1: I recently found a question here and I want to recommend another Linux distro to the asker. Is that okay here?

user242: Only in very rare cases would the solution be to recommend another distro. There is nothing hard and fast against it, but it would generally be frowned upon unless it was absolutely necessary.

original_text:
[-1:
I recently found a question here and I want to recommend another Linux distro to the asker. Is that okay here?

, 242:
Only in very rare cases would the solution be to recommend another distro. There is nothing hard and fast against it, but it would generally be frowned upon unless it was absolutely necessary.

]

issue: testtest


text:
user5: Should we allow questions and/or recommendations about software & electronic devices related to the outdoors?
Typically, any kind of question seeking a shopping recommendation has been off-topic, across the board at Stack Exchange.
As for software questions, I think they should be off-topic, perhaps asked/migrated at/to Super User, our site for computer hardware/software (full disclosure: I'm a  SU diamond moderator), where well-written, specific software-rec questions are allowed.
Example question: Are there any cheap 1:25K electronic maps for the UK or Europe?
What about questions regarding GPS units?  Should those be allowed in the scope of The Great Outdoors?

user27: I think they should be allowed if they are tied specifically to outdoor activities. GPS have a wide range of outdoor uses, and electronic maps can be very important for trip planning and printing. Meanwhile, the superuser community is less likely to have domain specific knowledge of the types of software that avid outdoor enthusiasts would.
However, if the question is related to problems operating software, I think SU would be a much better fit.

original_text:
[5:
Should we allow questions and/or recommendations about software & electronic devices related to the outdoors?

Typically, any kind of question seeking a shopping recommendation has been off-topic, across the board at Stack Exchange.

As for software questions, I think they should be off-topic, perhaps asked/migrated at/to Super User, our site for computer hardware/software (full disclosure: I'm a  SU diamond moderator), where well-written, specific software-rec questions are allowed.

Example question: Are there any cheap 1:25K electronic maps for the UK or Europe?

What about questions regarding GPS units?  Should those be allowed in the scope of The Great Outdoors?

, 27:
I think they should be allowed if they are tied specifically to outdoor activities. GPS have a wide range of outdoor uses, and electronic maps can be very important for trip planning and printing. Meanwhile, the superuser community is less likely to have domain specific knowledge of the types of software that avid outdoor enthusiasts would.

However, if the question is related to problems operating software, I think SU would be a much better fit.

]

issue: how are you