From time to time questions come up that clearly would better fit to other sites. As of now, the procedure of

      -> OTHER SITE

only allows the selection of Meta, as standard for beta sties. AFAIK graduating enables moderators to add other targets.

  • Is that true?
  • Can it already be done?

If yes to both, I think it would be a good idea to collect a list of targets (*1). Personally I think

should be added to that list. Meta may need to stay (as last option) for cases needing moderation.

Looking at The Stats (Thanks for the reminder to Stephen) show a few several migrations

Questions were migrated to

an one to each of Video Production, the main SO, Law and Raspberry Pi (*1). So at least Unix, SU and CS would further make wortwhile candidates.

  • Any other to be added?

*1 - I understand this list as a helper to users suggesting migration, so moderators doing this get an suggestion where to it should go.

*2 - Not many, which makes me wonder if our readers are that well verses in making only on topic questions or if we're hesitating too much to move border on topic ones.

  • 1
    I don't see a tool for it, but I know it can be done; I think we have to ask specifically for a migration path (so posting a question here is the correct first step).
    – wizzwizz4 Mod
    Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 9:10
  • Does this answer your question? Limited migration choices for moving off-topic questions? Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 12:51
  • @user3840170 When reading both question in full, it's obvious that the one you're reffering does describe the situation in Beta, which may change due graduation, as Whizzwizz4 mentioned as prerequisite in his Answer to the very same question you cite. Isn't it?
    – Raffzahn
    Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 13:28
  • If nothing else, it might help to keep the questions linked. But the other question is still accepting answers, so one might as well propose migration paths there. Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 13:30
  • @user3840170 That doesn't make much sense. My basic question is if it now can be done. Also, every question does accept answers. Turning questions into moving targets is never a good idea. New situation, new direction -> new question!
    – Raffzahn
    Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 13:38
  • Sometimes it’s a very good idea. Meta threads are often linked to as justifications for policy decisions, and it’s helpful if they reflect current community consensus, not just one of the time. But I won’t be pressing this matter too much. Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 13:47

2 Answers 2


Yes it is true, we can add (and/or edit) both site-specific close reasons and migration targets as we become a graduated site.

Close reason changes require two moderators to agree on the action and click the appropriate buttons. Migration target changes, as far as I know, have to be made by SE staff upon request.

The answer by user3840170 makes a very good point - do we need them? Assuming that we do, the targets should be chosen very carefully. Migration is not something that is done lightly. Before migrating anything under the current system, moderators go through a checklist before clicking the button. It can be too easy to migrate on a whim. Look at the arguments on ELU and ELL metas regarding migration between those two sites. The last thing we want is something similar between us and - for example - Arqade.

I'm not against it, just against haste.

  • "It can be too easy to migrate on a whim." This sounds as if a single migrate request from a single user could do so. Is this the case? My impression was that it needs, like closing, a certain number of vote which not only need to agree on migrating, but as well on using the same target. So, what's wrong in trusting the community to self regulate?
    – Raffzahn
    Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 21:32
  • 2
    Nothing is wrong with self-regulation. It is the best way. Migration would need 5 votes.
    – Chenmunka Mod
    Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 21:35
  • Sounds good to me.
    – Raffzahn
    Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 21:37

I don’t think we need more automatic migration paths. According to our listing (as of January 2022), since June 2016 we have only had 37 questions migrated away; that’s barely more than one migrated question per two months. Of those, 14 (nearly half) were to our own Meta. The current unofficial system in which community members suggest migration paths to moderators in comments seems just enough to handle a volume this low.

I fear automatic migration paths would mostly serve as a new favourite hammer of knee-jerk close voters to whom everything looks like a nail, e.g. voting off questions to Arqade at the first mention of video games anywhere. Because I do think we have something of a problem with overzealous closing (see Question mischaracterized as off-topic, Why is the question about running Windows 95 in DOSBox supposedly off-topic?, What was unclear about this question?). I think requiring a moderator intervention in this process could do well to temper this tendency.

  • 1
    I'm not sure if it's a good argument turning a technical question (which targets would be useful) into a political (I do not want to give the community the power to self regulate). If you think it need to be discussed, it would be a good idea to open a dedicated question to talk about political handling, as this question is simply about possible targets.
    – Raffzahn
    Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 21:32
  • Like Lessig said, code is law. Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 21:33
  • And twisting arguments for political gain never a good idea. Why not try to stay on topic and cooperate?
    – Raffzahn
    Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 21:35
  • I am staying on-topic. Adding more migration targets is just as much a political decision as not doing so. Being in denial about a technical decision having political consequences is not a good idea either. Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 21:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .