Sortiert nach Schließgründen
Fragen, deren Duplikat in der jeweils anderen Sprache ist, sollten in der Regel nicht geschlossen werden. Ansonsten sind die allgemeinen Stack-Exchange-Regeln anzuwenden.
Dieser Schließgrund sollte nicht verwendet werden, wenn die Frage erläutert, warum ein Wörterbuch o. Ä. die ...
For your question to be on topic, it has to meet some requirements. Fulfilling these is not only easy in most cases but also likely to improve question and answers:
Consult a dictionary first (and tell us about it)
Before asking, consult some dictionaries or similar resources.
Tell us what you found and why it didn’t help you.
The benefits of this are ...
There is little debate as to close question that do not show any research effort.
We should however be not too picky on this. If a user consulted one or more dictionaries but still was unable to understand a word or an expression it may be sufficent if they told us so, or gave us an example why their dictionary confused them.
Some rare words may not be ...
This is a fork from Pops’ answer, trying to incorporate the general approach (tell people what the site is about first) but trying to solve some issues with the wording and be closer to the original suggestion in some aspects.
I propose that we:
Remove the old close reason.
Add the general-reference close reason
This site is about the usage and rules ...
I agree in the biggest part with @Takkat, but I would like to add one point.
On questions about "differences" / "nuances" and "understanding" it would be nice to see the actual dictionary entry that the user found. This is helpful in two ways:
It allows me, as answerer, to better understand what exactly OP knows so I can pick him up at his pace effectively....
I suggest at least one new close reason:
Questions asking for differences between words or phrases are off-topic unless a context or prior research effort are clearly indicated. For more information, see How do I ask good, on-topic questions for translations or about differences?.
To make this on-topic you might quote two related dictionary translations ...
I suggest as a wording:
This question seems to only require expertise of a language other than German. Please edit your question to clarify where you need expertise of the German language or ask on a site about the other language. For help in doing so, see Does my translation request belong here and if not, where and how shall I ask it?
In my opinion, the line between bulk translation requests (off-topic) and phrase requests (on-topic¹) is a rather clear one:
If there is a realistic chance (from an answer’s point of view) that the question can be answered by something that would make for a single item in a reasonable dictionary, it is on-topic¹. Or with other words: If it is conceivable ...
Thanks for raising this question. I was one of those who voted for closing it. It appeared to me to be something that could be easily solved by looking up the term in the Duden, so I saw this as a clear example for the "we are not a translation service" rule.
However, I was wrong and should have thought about the question at least as long as the OP did. ...
What I would consider "minimum" research effort is the following:
The person has consulted at least ONE source, either a dictionary, a human source, or possibly even Google translate.
Provides a "best guess" based on his or her research.
States any reservations or qualifications he or she has about the "best guess," or a claim that the source did not ...
I’m not sure about Stack Exchange-wide policies, but I feel we should also provide the reason in German — some people keep reminding us that not everybody speaks English well enough to understand everything while they do speak German.
Thus I propose adding a translation to the close reason:
Wir denken, dass diese Frage durch ein Wörterbuch, eine ...
Why should somebody consult an online translation service before asking here?
I think that consulting an automatic translation services should never be mandatory and given their inevitable shortcomings, I would not recommend them either in most cases. Consulting such a service can be one way of prior research in some cases, but that’s about it.
Was this ...
I just came by to follow up on the previous request and possibly enable some new close reasons, but I'm concerned about how the current drafts look.
I don't have any philosophical objections to the direction you want to go, although I believe some sites in the network tried, struggled with and ultimately abandoned versions of "general reference" close ...
Google translate is in fact not even a bad start IMO. But it's also nothing more than that.
Automatic translations are in fact quite good at analyzing (at least roman languages) and fixed phrases. The word choice and grammar may be (sometimes seriously) off, but the words are the correct ones in most cases.
This makes banning Google Translate a little hard....
As an alternative to new close reasons, we could expand the existing custom close reason for translations:
Questions asking for translations, differences, proofreading or similar are off-topic unless it is clearly indicated why general references such as dictionaries do not provide sufficient answers. We're here to help you learn, not provide a bulk ...
The other off-topic reasons start with "This site is about/for". For the sake of consistency I suggest:
This site is for questions requiring expertise in German. Requests which mainly rely on knowledge of another language are not well-suited here and should be asked on respective sister sites. If you think specific knowledge about German is required, ...
I prefer using approach 3. We do not fix the typo, but vote to close, while providing a corrected word for OP to use.
Stackoverflow has a similar close-reason:
If the asker then has questions concerning the corrected word / phrase, he should open a new question.
The difference is this:
Questions on any topic should be only asked after prior research effort. If a question can be easily solved by a short research, it should be closed. In this case the close vote should usually be accompanied by a comment linking to a Wikipedia article or similar to demonstrate the lack of effort. However, in general, questions are ...
To see where stuff is going, I have started from the current text. Changes are bold:
German Language Stack Exchange is for speakers and learners of German wanting to discuss the finer points of the language and translations.
Before asking, please consider the following points to ensure that your question is welcome and on-topic here:
Look around to see if ...
Let me suggest the following wording:
We feel that your question can be answered by a dictionary, a grammar book, or a similar general reference. To have your question reopened, explain what you found when consulting these references and why they did not help you. See our Help Center and How do I ask good, on-topic questions for translations or about ...
Because of the issues we have with an umbrella term I propose we ditch general reference alltogether and just say what reference we mean:
This site is about the usage and rules of the German language. It is not well-suited to replace a dictionary, thesaurus, or conjugation table. If you have already consulted such sources and still have questions, please ...
A principle in most SE-sites is "Show your own effort!" I think this principle rules for German SE, too. And in this sense, it is not too much to ask to use an online translator1, to look if it answers the question and (only) if it does not then to ask, especially what is furthermore unclear.
I think, most people here are glad to help but no one wants to be ...
Please also take a look at this suggestion, which is essentially the same with a more friendly approach to the wording.
The proposal should be implemented exactly as suggested, except for the unopposed modification proposed by Takkat. This means:
Remove the old close reason.
Add the new close reason as discussed:
We feel that your question can be ...
I see your point that this step feels superfluous: If the asker explained why a dictionary did not help, how can we expect that a simple look-up in a dictionary would not answer the question?
Let’s first assume that the answer is never (per definition of what exactly we mean by simple look-up in a dictionary).
Then the extra step does not change the outcome, ...
Are errors valuable?
Actually I can not think of any typo or spelling mistake which could only remotely make up a valuable question on our site dedicated to the "finer points of the German language".
Any question on a mistake may only be valuable to the questioner in this very short time until he gets it answered. After that it will neither be ...
Before we add a new reason to close a question as off topic (which can easily be done with little effort) we should define the scope of this reason.
The fact that something can be looked up easily with Google or in a good (not any!) dictionary alone may not be a sufficient close reason in many cases. We need to take care to not close question that are both, ...
The predefined close reason "Too localized" was dropped system wide. See here for reasons and discussion:
Closing changes: on hold, unclear, too broad, opinion-based, off-topic reasons, bye-bye to Too Localized
Basically, the idea behind this was that if a question was "too localized" it will always be off topic too.
Because there always will be bordeline ...
Here's my 2 cents on this.
Off-Topic is Off-Topic and Unclear is Unclear. full stop.
It doesn't matter if we consider that the question might be a good question if [insert various reasons here]. The problem with that is, that it is beyond the point of closing a question.
IMO we should (and can only) judge the question as-is and not as might possibly be, if ...