On Area 51, there were at least . Both were deleted.  Proposals with insufficient activity are subject to removal. Occasionally, proposals may also be removed for reasons of moderation: spam, off topic, abuse, etc.  If I may ask, were these removals due to &quot;insufficient activity&quot; or due to military-related matters being considered off-topic? The reason I ask this question is that I see no point in gathering a few people and attempting to start a new SE site that will never take off due to its being considered off-topic.
48972
I know of the following rules for creating a proposal on Area 51:  The scope must be reasonably well-defined, not too unclear (e.g. &quot;cool stuff&quot;), too opinion-based (e.g. &quot;car reviews&quot;), too broad (e.g. &quot;life on Earth&quot;), or too narrow (e.g. &quot;The 1995 academic misconduct scandal at East Oak Mews High School&quot;). One  come to Area 51 with an already existing community rather than hope to build one on Area 51. Proposals that are subsets of existing sites are not acceptable (e.g.  — deleted). These get closed as &quot;This subject is already well-covered by a live Stack Exchange site. We generally do not split off subjects simply to give them their own space.&quot; Proposals for non-English sites .  Other than the criteria above, are there any per se restrictions on site content for an Area 51 proposal? If so, what topics are currently banned? I would expect a proposal for a &quot;Let's organize a lawsuit against Stack Exchange&quot; or &quot;[Specific SE staff member] sucks, amirite?&quot; would get closed for obvious reasons, but I'm interested if there are any non-obvious topics that are not currently allowed in proposals regardless of how well-defined, well-scoped, original, and well-supported by a community they are. Having a list of banned topics would be helpful to potential proposers as well as the communities that back them. For example, I wouldn't want to go to all the effort of organizing a community, bringing them to Area 51, etc., only to have my proposal closed with a curt &quot;Sorry, due to the political climate, we are not currently accepting proposals for sites about real-life weapons.&quot; custom closure. To be clear, I am asking solely about topic restrictions (e.g. &quot;no sites about fishing, hunting, or weapons&quot;). I'm not asking about clarity requirements, the requirement to have a pre-existing community, not duplicating an existing site, or the requirement to not use sock puppets to artificially inflate proposal stats. Those requirements are already well-defined elsewhere or else are common sense. Also to be clear, I don't have a specific proposal idea in mind right now or the community to make it happen. I'm asking in general. The question could be rephrased as &quot;What are those topics where I shouldn't even bother to try to define, gather a community, etc. because any attempt to propose a site will be summarily closed due to covering a banned topic?&quot; This is not a duplicate of  because that question is about the appropriateness of expanding a proposal to cover things that are acceptable proposal topics but arguably don't make sense in combination with the original proposal scope. My question is about topics that are completely banned from proposals regardless of whether they are included in the original proposal description or tacked on by the community later.
119406
I was looking at the Community user's profile, and I noticed that there was about 15 sites missing in the "accounts" tab. There's a little over 120 sites on SE, and, there's about 15 sites missing from this count. Why is this happening?    Additionally, clicking on view more just shows one account, on Area51:
28667
Some sites appear far more often in the hot questions list than other sites. I don't have any hard data on that, as that kind of data is just not publicly available, but I'm pretty sure my subjective impression on that is reasonably accurate.  Those sites don't appear more often because they are inherently more interesting, but because they have certain voting and answering patterns that favor them in the hot questions algorithm. I would argue that the goal of the hot questions list is to present questions from a large variety of SE sites to the whole network, and to show possibly interesting questions to users that would not have found them otherwise.   To achieve this goal, the spots in the hot questions list should be distributed among all SE sites. The algorithm should try to get a good sampling of all sites, and it should try to normalize the results for varying voting behaviour. At the moment, sites that intrinsically get more votes and more answers per question seem favored in the algorithm.  So I think one part of the algorithm should try to identify questions that get an unusally high amount of votes and views for that site, and give the smaller sites a chance this way.  I'm not sure on how exactly this weighting should be done, as a complete normalization would likely not work across the huge difference in scale for all the SE sites.  As a specific example that the current algorithm is broken I'll present . I don't think any site should occupy a third of the whole list.   Here's another instance where one site is overrepresented at the top of the list:
87803
I've read some great on-topic example questions on Area 51.  My questions:   Should a proposed site's "Great On-Topic Example" questions be automatically included in its beta? Will a proposed site's "Great On-Topic Example" questions be automatically included in its beta?
73880
Important: This question is being asked here, and not on the Programmers Meta,  because I believe that several SE sites suffer from this same, specific problem.    On Programmers, I see a pattern emerging.   New User sees the "Programmers" site title, and asks their incomplete, "fix my broken code" question. Community members comment that their question is off-topic, and recommend Stack Overflow.  New User says "thanks" and leaves, leaving their undeleted question for the community to clean up.    What seems clear to me is that:   New User has never seen the "What kinds of questions can I ask about here" page, or if they have, they've clicked through it without reading it. New User doesn't know how to move their question to the right place properly  (i.e. post on new site, delete from old site). Community cleanup of such questions is onerous.  The moderators on Programmers, following the principle that the community should moderate itself for the most part, are not proactive about removing such questions unless they're especially egregious. Migration is even more onerous.   OK, so we have the .  Here's what it says about topicality, about halfway down the page:    Note to those who are confused about Programmers' site scope: it's all right there, in black and white.  However, I do notice a problem.  It's circled in red.  That's our fault, the fault of the Programmers community.  What we really meant to say was "Don't ask your code troubleshooting questions here; those belong on Stack Overflow."  Coding tools deserves its own bullet.  We should fix that.  However, what are the chances that the user is actually seeing this, and evaluating whether or not they should ask their question based on this?  So here's my question, in two acts:  ACT I:  Is there a way to highlight the pain points of a particular site to new users specifically, so that we can be very clear that we don't want those questions that are clearly and unambiguously off-topic on our site, before they ask their question?  ACT II: Failing that, is there a way that we can fast-track the removal of such questions so that they no longer pollute our front page?
84275
I have deep issues with the 'Hot Network Questions' containing questions from the religion sub-sites. This is not because I dislike questions about religion, nor because I think these sites have no place on the network in theory - they do. The reason I am annoyed by these Q&amp;A's is that the quality of highly upvoted questions is often extremely low, and questions that are out of scope (since they are about reality) are not deleted.  Obligatory examples: All answers have been upvoted and are popular, I did not rotten-cherry pick:   Q    A +0 accepted   Q    A +10   Q    A +36     Q    A +4   Q    A +8   Q    A +9     I imagine questions, and answers such as these would be deleted on any other StackExchange site. Would I not be told 'reality' was not in scope if I asked a question on scifi.stackexchange.com like .   The level of answers at the sub-sites specifically for religion is very low, especially the answers that turn up in the 'Hot Network Questions' list. I propose removal of these sites from the network, as they do not fit the quality standards for SE. Alternatively, I would like to filter out these sites from the 'Hot Network Questions' list.  Addendum There is a related question under , a denied feature request for personalizing a filter for hot network questions. While that would have solved my issue, the fact that it wasn't implemented means my issue is unsolved, and my wish for a resolution to jarring questions on the Hot Network Question list remains (and in this case it's not just the low-quality floating up as usual, but actually especially jarring for the non-'experts' of religion.SE).
110399
Just ran across , which was bumped by  for having been unanswered. However, it was answered by Jeff (no upvotes), along with a  tag. I gave an upvote so that it wouldn't be bumped again. But, Community should ignore those posts, since they have an official answer.  Possible exceptions, as pointed out by random, are the statuses planned and deferred.  Statuses bydesign, completed and declined should be ignored by Community.
85790
The scopes of many sites overlap, e.g.:    and ;  and ; , , , and ; and any language site with  and .   Currently the "Related" list of questions is restricted to questions for that particular site.  It seems natural to extend this to either:   add an additional, short "Related network questions" list, or allow a limited number of off-site questions within the "Related" list, highlighting the site they're from, and maybe throttling the  for off-site questions.   My hope is that it can identify questions that are already asked on other sites (), and this knowledge can assist writing answers.  Question: Would a "Related network questions" list be possible and worthwhile?
121192
I know Will was using his answer to  for testing, but I still think this is a bit odd:    I tried voting to undelete, but it just gave me the "nice try puny mortal, this was deleted by a mod" error popup.
59916
According to Area51,  is still in private beta. But yet I just signed up on it  (already deleted the profile now) despite I didn't commit to the proposal or recieve any mail.  Why did this happen?
107293
I have two proposals on Area 51.  I'd like to get the word out about them, however, I don't know of to many Stack Exchange users who would be interested in these sites.  I'm not trying to necessarily ask a subjective question, but what are some effective channels that we can use to at least drive traffic to Area 51?  I have considered posting messages in a few of the chat boards.  Is this considered spam or is that acceptable.  I did do that a couple of times for my "Retro-Gaming" proposal but I stopped because I felt like it might be against the TOS.  Any tips or points-of-clarification would be appreciated.
37122
On the religion and culture stackexchange sites, many, many users will initially ask a question in a place that's kind of off-topic there, but are fully on-board elsewhere.    Christianity.SE, for example, gets a lot of general philopsophical questions that would be better on Philosophy, historical questions that might be better on History.SE, and hermenutical questions that are better on BH.SE.  It is, however, unreasonable in my mind for a user with a question to be required to have domain expertise on which sub-site each has. Indeed, even amongst users with a high amount of knowledge, there can be disagreement.  Likewise, , but as just about every one of those is in beta, the user would have to be very saavy (or would have to find that post) in order to nail it every time.  That said, recommending that a question be moved is much harder than it needs to be.  I have seen business rule logic that says, for example,    migration paths only exist to graduated sites (ergo politics, money, history, and quantitative finance wouldn't qualify) migration paths seem to be limited to 5.   Anything not on a migration path requires a moderator (and not just a high rep user) to get involved.  So, what is the reasoning behind this?  Note, I'm not asking for a solution (although the obvious solution would be to allow migration paths to any established site, beta or not, i.e. a VTC as off topic b/c it belongs on another site should allow you to pick any other site) - I just want to understand the business purpose in restricting migration paths to a small, predefined number for everyone other than a mod.
26671
I came across something rather interesting today. I was browsing Area 51 on Chrome when I happened to click on . To this, I was greeted with a prompt asking:    As , and fully expecting a crash, I clicked on SE. However, that didnt happen.     Now, since Area 51 Meta is working correctly as far as Q&amp;A is concerned, I think it should be added to the All Sites list and if at all possible, made directly browsable from within the app.
89756
I can imagine that it is a little bit hard if you're not a native Japanese or Russian speaker to figure out where those new sites are and what they are about. Putting them under uncategorized is not what those new sites deserve.     &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;   I understand from previous incidents  that  end up in this category for a while.    Can we make sure that new sites get properly categorized?
58535
Is it still a thing? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it.   Ask Ubuntu: 264 Meta SE: 81 Linguistics: 56 Area 51: 51 (spooky!) Super User: 33 Unix &amp; Linux: 3 Stack Overflow | User Experience | Bicyles | Video Production | Music: Theory &amp; Practice | Retrocomputing | Genealogy &amp; Family History | Joomla: 1
21616
There is much overlap between the SO, SF and SU sites.  For instance, questions about shell programming are programming related (since they are about programming), about system administration (because they manage the shell) and for single users too, if they want to script their computer.    I suggest allowing questions that overlap sites to be posted to more than one site simultaneously in order to:   avoid duplication between sites get answers from all 3 communities.   I suggest that the answers be visible on all relevant sites, and that any votes apply to all relevant sites.  Edit:  For instance, questions about VIM have appeared in SO (637/222780 questions) and in SF (17/8142 questions).  VIM is a valuable tool for programmers as well as sysadmins.  Where do such questions belong?  I didn't review all the questions in SO but the ones in SF could easily be in SO as well.  How about Perl?  9/8142 on SF and 1772/222780 on SO.  If you're a sysadmin but not a programmer, Perl is most certainly relevant.  These are two cases where there is overlap.  I'm sure there are many more.  Edit: Here are some good examples of questions on SU that are relevant to SF and SO as well:       Edit: Here's another example of such concerns:
108512
Here is a list of special, unlinked pages (they may be linked in questions and answers) on Stack Exchange sites. Most pages listed here are work in progress or legacy. Currently, this list is incomplete.  If you know more of them, add them to the answer.  Related