Post History

Before I found out about the explicit closure reasons in the interface, this is the proposed set I was working on:

<details><summary>Duplicate</summary>

*Description*: self-explanatory.

*Commentary*: here is still [an open question](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/284169) about what to do with near-duplicates and "related" questions.
</details><details><summary>Misplaced or off topic</summary>

*Description*: This question is not within the scope of [category] of [site]. It might be better off in a different category or Codidact site, or it may not have a place on Codidact at all.

*Commentary*: this would encompass what Stack Overflow calls "Not about ..." (i.e., actually off topic), "Seeking recommendations for ...", and "This question belongs on another site". It directly corresponds to the current "off topic" reason, but I think that needs to be broadened. I would expect that moderators and curators can either move questions that aren't otherwise problematic, or else *suggest* where the author should go to try again.
</details><details><summary>No clear issue</summary>

*Description*: This question does not clearly identify and ask about a problem that could be experienced by others. It either doesn't make sense at all, is written in a language not supported by the community, or doesn't appear to seek an answer that can be justified objectively; or else it isn't clear why the problem described is actually a problem or that any answer to it could meaningfully help others.

*Commentary*: this would encompass what Stack Overflow calls "Opinion-based", "Not written in English" and "Not reproducible or was caused by a typo", along with some questions that "Need details or clarity". It's not really captured by existing close reasons. The current "unclear" reason is described much more like what I call "missing crucial information", and "not constructive" only covers the "not reproducible or was caused by a typo" situation (albeit more broadly). While it sounds like this covers a lot of ground, I don't think it's actually useful to differentiate further, most of the time.
</details><details><summary>Improperly scoped</summary>

*Description*: This question has either too wide or too narrow scope to make a useful reference. If too narrow, it probably focuses on details that are unlikely to be actually relevant to the best solutions to the problem. If too wide, it might be multiple questions disguised as one - for example, asking about a complex task that should be broken down into logical steps that should be handled separately. Alternately, answering it properly may require excessively long answers.

*Commentary*: this corresponds to "Needs more focus" on Stack Overflow, or "too generic" in the current close reasons (although "too generic" doesn't make any sense to me as a label for this situation). I've broadened it to indicate questions that are *too* focused as well, because I know from experience that this can be harmful in the long run. In particular, it leads people to ask questions that *should* be considered duplicates but end up being treated as separate because the answers are too precisely tailored to one version of the same problem.
</details><details><summary>Missing crucial information</summary>

*Description*: This question cannot be answered in its current form, because an answer would depend on information that only the author can provide. Depending on that information, the question may still be a duplicate or otherwise unsuitable.

*Commentary*: this corresponds to the other "Needs details or clarity" questions on Stack Overflow, as well as "Needs debugging details". Per the description, it's almost exactly what we currently call "unclear", but I think that label is wrong (see commentary for "No clear issue").
</details>

These are honestly pretty close to what we already have, but I think I've made many useful refinements. More importantly, I have **not** included anything that overlaps "outdated or superseded" - because I don't think such questions should be closed. It would make more sense to be able to add "Outdated" or "Dangerous" reacts to questions, and edit them to link to questions that are about more up-to-date versions of the problem. This is especially important for technical communities - it's important to be able to maintain legacy systems, and the fact that newer systems exist *doesn't prevent people from figuring out better ways to maintain the legacy systems*.

It comes across like this close reason might have been intended for closing "established" duplicates after the fact, but I think the normal duplicate closure should be used in those cases (and, ideally, authors of answers get notified, so they can migrate and adapt content).