Do we need to review our "on topic" list?

Question

This question is due to this question and the subsequent discussion in chat.

It looks like we have a few questions that are not really on topic, but rather are about military stuff and they are not closed only because an aircraft is involved.

Examples:

• What exactly was the American WW2 smokebomb used in naval warfare? : about naval warfare, nothing about aviation in the question or in the answer. aircraft are only the delivery vector for the bombs in question

• Are there countermeasures for semi-active laser homing SAM? : tracking countermeasures, once again nothing I can see as being within our on topic subjects

• How is the A-10 effective against tanks? : a discussion about (machine) guns and tank armour. not closed only because the gun is mounted on an aircraft.

We currently list the following as our topics:

• Flying technique, maneuvers, navigation, procedures, etc.
• Air Traffic Control
• Aviation Weather
• Aviation Regulations
• Aerodynamics (related to aircraft)
• Aviation Safety

Do we want to change the list? or should we police more closely the questions that get asked?

Answer 1

I agree with Federico's stance in principle, but often an asker does not have enough knowledge to discriminate whether a question has enough of an aviation component. It is up to the community to fill in this gap.

The countermeasures one is a good example, the only aviation part of it is that helicopter kinematics play a role in the lack of countermeasures, which is not something a lay person would know a priori. The same could be said for the A-10 question: does the plane play a significant role in the gun's effectiveness? There was also an older question about NCrit that was closed (and reopened after an edit), despite asking about a parameter that was not unique to the XFLR5 program. It was definitely close-worthy as asked, but also easy to rewrite in a useful direction.

Ultimately I think we should edit these questions to focus on the aviation part when possible, so that some profit can come of them. If that proves impossible or the OP wants to focus on the unrelated part, then we should close it as off-topic.

Regarding the actual on-topic page:

• Add Engineers to the list of people in the target audience, since there are a bunch of us here anyway.

• Add Aircraft Design and Manufacture as on-topic.

Answer 2

Personally I think that we should not accept questions that are not leading to any new aviation knowledge for the asker or any reader.

In particular, I would add the following to our "not about" list:

• military tactics
• military strategy

And the following to our "about" list:

• Aircraft design and construction

I am ready to consider the tracking countermeasures borderline, but I do not see how a discussion on ammunition and tank armour belongs to an aviation site.

Answer 3

Yes it would be very good if the On Topic List is expanded. The current list is extremely limited, and would define the most popular tag (Aircraft Design) as off topic.

As also mentioned here.

• Aircraft design
• Weight and Balance
• Structures (related to aircraft)
• Aircraft performance
• Aircraft systems
• Flight dynamics
• Thermodynamics (related to aircraft)
• Stability and control
• Aviation engines
• Aviation history

Benefit of the doubt should go towards inclusion, unless obviously out of place. If an aircraft is involved, is the question not by definition about aviation?

Answer 4

The military questions mentioned I can understand...E.G. the countermeasures question discussed above. I do not though understand why the first question you mentioned (Practical use of hoverboards) was off topic. There are many other questions about innovations in aviation and I would consider this just another one. Taken to an extreme, it seems like an ASE in the 1930s would vote to close questions about Jets or Helicopters!

I also disagreed with the closing of this question. I believe questions on aviation's impact on the environment are quite relevant as long as they don't spurn flame wars.