Timeline for Introduce a "general reference" close reason
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2011 at 21:30 | comment | added | jscs |
I'd say that as long as the body of the question demonstrates that the poster has found and tried to read the manual, then it's not "general reference". I'm personally perfectly willing to help a beginner figure out what the hell the docs mean (and to vote to reopen questions that are along those lines if necessary); but there's a world of difference between "How do I add an object to my array?" and "I tried to use addObject: on my array and got weird results -- the docs for addObject: say only frobs are allowed. What's a frob? Is that the problem?"
|
|
| May 31, 2011 at 21:12 | comment | added | Gabe | Certainly any link that just points to a huge documentation file would have to specify what part of the document to look at, too. | |
| May 31, 2011 at 20:59 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @Pekka Hm. I think that might be do-able. If you can simply cut-n-paste from the reference site, without any additional commentary, and know that the OP will understand, then this would be appropriate. | |
| May 31, 2011 at 20:32 | comment | added | Pekka | yes, the "general reference" close reason must absolutely apply only to those questions to which the manual link is the actual answer. Anything on a higher level than that (like the example you quote) mustn't be closed under this reason - the answer may still lie in the manual, but the proper way is to quote the appropriate sections and add a plain-english explanation, as it has always been. This is a clear and present danger, but I'm optimistic with the right communication, a consensus will work out for "general reference" as it has for all the other close reasons. | |
| S May 31, 2011 at 20:29 | history | answered | Pollyanna | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S May 31, 2011 at 20:29 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Pollyanna |