Thinking about:

Why room gets heated (closed and deleted, access to moderation tool > 10k reputation required)

Now, I agree that this question has a strong physics bent to it, but thermodynamics is a core area of chemistry as much as it is in physics. This question is so basic that the principles required and language needed to explain it would arguably fit fine in either SE (though I would agree it's better in physics.SE).

The question is whether or not we should completely shun an example like this because there is no explicit mention of chemistry, but arguably uses core chemical principles.

This type of situation will arise mostly for thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, two areas that bridge chemistry and physics.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I lean towards off-topic for this particular question. The link to chemistry is tenuous at best; I personally don't really see the core chemical principles at play (you may try to convince me otherwise, though). I guess you could also call me a hypocrite, but I think this one was at least slightly more chemistry-related, since these things form the basis for much of quantum chemistry. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2017 at 14:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Geez, are you asking about this homework dump? Also don't link to this thing, meta-effect etc. Andselisk should just cv as homework. While heat cycles are a part of chemical engineering we shouldn't waste time on discussion when question should be closed $\endgroup$
    – Mithoron
    Commented Oct 8, 2017 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Mithoron Sorry, linked example is probably not the best, but I have noticed questions that we seem reluctant to touch, though to me, I would have been comfortable addressing some of the issues while I was teaching. $\endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Commented Oct 8, 2017 at 22:05

1 Answer 1


I'm going to set aside the issues with the linked question and explain, very briefly, the modus operandi we generally adhere to.

We should only decide whether a question is on topic or not. Just because a question is also on topic on another site is not a ground to migrate it, even if it was better suited there. If you think a question would be fine here, and find an answer, then it should stay.
A question is not automatically off topic here, just because it is on topic somewhere else.

There is nothing wrong saying that someone would maybe find a better answer somewhere else. However, suggesting migration is then not the path to choose. Better is deleting and asking again. Cross posts usually get closed and when suggesting this action, one should also mention this.
One caveat is that you may ask a question on different sites, if you want to focus on different things. But then you should explicitly mention this and preferably not ask at the same time.

Migration in general is a thing we prefer not to do. Sometimes a good question simply gets posted at the wrong site; it should be closed first to determine that it is off topic, then flagged for migration. In borderline cases we moderators have to investigate if it is on topic at the target site, because migrations can be rejected and we don't want to give more work to other moderators. We do not have migration paths, because we hardly ever use this feature in the first place. There simply is not enough data, to support setting these up.

When in doubt use the custom flag to contact one (and all) of us ("... in need of moderator intervention").

  • $\begingroup$ The only migration paths that would even make sense are probably physics and biology. But I fully agree with you that the issue is very minor since the number of questions we (should) migrate is equally minor. $\endgroup$
    – Jan
    Commented Oct 8, 2017 at 14:47
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Of the few questions which could be migrated, there are even fewer which are of decent quality. After all, the guideline is don't migrate crap. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2017 at 14:58

You must log in to answer this question.

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