This question was closed as off topic.

Also, this proposal was closed as duplicated of ServerFault.

Shouldn't one of them be reopened?

  • This is not the correct place to discuss Area 51. I don't know what is the appropriate area but this is not it. Commented Jan 26, 2011 at 20:54
  • I think the issue is that particular question was not great, I would not use it as a sweeping indemnification.. Commented Jan 27, 2011 at 11:04
  • I've read this a few times and the bit I can't understand is why you think the closing of the question and the proposal are somehow linked. They're not. They were closed separately and for different reasons. Commented Jan 28, 2011 at 1:15
  • @John Gardeniers: I don't think the closes are linked. I just thought that my question would fit in that Networking website. And as the proposal was closed as duplicated of ServerFault, so questions that fit Networking should be asked in ServerFault instead. But looks like my question wouldn't fit neither, as told in the answers. I would try SU, but the question is already answered. Maybe it should be moved. Commented Jan 28, 2011 at 18:41

3 Answers 3


Your question seems to be about a a piece of gear primarily aimed at consumers. Which is why it got some close-votes here.

Your question probably would have been closed on a site suggested by that area51 proposal, since that proposal also seems to be aimed at professional gear.

It probably would have stayed open on superuser, though I am sure it is a duplicate of some question that already exists on ether serverfault or here.

You are also questioning the existence, of an extremely common device. I think it would be extremely difficult to find a consumer 'wireless router' that doesn't have a few spare switch/hub ports. Almost every 'wireless router' sold recently is a wireless bridge, a wired switch, a router, with a NAT firewall, all the done in the installed firmware. Such a basic question doesn't really fit very well with the professional system administration focus of serverfault.

  • Nice explanation. Commented Jan 26, 2011 at 18:04

I don't believe so: Your question isn't really "off-topic", though probably better for SU as Zoredache mentioned but it's been answered and as it's also something that can be answered by a few seconds on Google I don't think it needs to stick around for posterity.

Your proposal does have some merit, but the close reason ("This proposal would tend to drain audience from another Stack Exchange site.") makes at least as much sense: Networking topics have a home on SF, and there probably isn't a large enough audience to justify splitting it off just yet. (That said at some point a networking site might be worth having, though personally I don't think we've reached that point yet).

  • 2
    I don't think network equipment can be logically separate enough from general systems administration for it to make sense as a separate site. I barely approve of the Security site, though most SAs would admit they don't know as much as they should about security (think that argument works for networking, most good SAs know as much as they should about networking). Otherwise, spot on.
    – Chris S
    Commented Jan 27, 2011 at 2:43

That proposal should be closed. The sample questions are obviously well within the scope of SF. SF is for Server, Network, and Client Administration (details are in the FAQ).

There is misunderstanding of the SF and SU sites in regards to networking, software, and other topics. The simplest answer is just pick one, and if it's in the wrong place we'll move it for you. But, all these topics fit into one or the other already.

  • 1
    Better yet, go to a a site you think might be appropriate and read the FAQ. Then, based on that information, either post the question or keep looking for the correct place to post it. Commented Jan 26, 2011 at 20:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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