user2516: It has been a while since the decision to deprecate music ID has been made, and while the steps have been finalized, there was kind of a blocker that left the progress in limbo:


Edit ID-request close reason to include a note and meta link about it (basically add a link to this meta post)


Thus, we are going to continue the process by updating the close reason for "ID-request".

Currently, the close reason looks like this:

Identification questions are off-topic, because they tend to attract low-quality and low-effort posts. The community has decided to no longer support these questions. Please refer to this meta post for additional details.

The most prominent issue is that the meta post is linking to What we'd like to do about those gosh darn "identification requests" questions which is specifically about identifying anime/manga/other media works only. On the music ID depreciation post itself, it was proposed to add an additional link to that meta post. However, perhaps there is a better proposal to make the close reason more flexible while also being permanent, in case another ID-req scope change happens? This is where we need your input!
Meanwhile, the Community Managers also suggested using this chance to use the new 5-field audience-specific format. To quote from a Meta Stack Exchange post which has gone through this process,

The fields available to us are limited to 500 characters with the exception of the first field, so keep that in mind when proposing/making changes!
The format is as follows:

Brief description (100 characters) - Visible in the close/flag dialog in bold. Should be very succinct, only spanning a couple of words.
Usage guidance - Tells close voters when to use the close reason. Ideally, this is descriptive enough to cover edge cases, and that detail should inspire confidence in close voters that this reason is the right choice under specified circumstances.
Post notice close description - Visible to all users, the post notice description should follow the format "This question was closed because it is ... It is not currently accepting answers."
Post owner guidance - Visible only to the post author, this should explain to the OP why their question was closed, and give detailed information on how to improve their post to get it reopened. Helpful links to the help center would be nice to include.
Privileged user guidance - Visible to users with the cast close votes privilege in the post notice on a post closed with this close reason. This should inform close voters on how best to guide the asker in improving their question or inform them when the question should be reopened.


Feel free to browse some examples from other communities who also have gone through this process to get some idea:

Meta Stack Exchange:

Let's update our "only applicable to one specific site" close reason to utilize the five available close fields!
Let's update our blatantly off-topic close reason to use the 5 available close fields!


Academia.SE: New audience-specific texts for our custom close reasons
GraphicDesign.SE: New audience-specific texts for our custom close reasons
German.SE: New audience-specific texts for our custom close reasons


Similar to the one on Meta Stack Exchange, we are going to follow their method:

1 seeded proposal, edit and/or comment on the post for minor changes.
Post a new answer if the change is major/significant.

We will conclude the discussion by May 8 if there is no objection. So, let’s get the ball rolling!

user2516: Brief description:

Disallowed type of identification request

Usage guidance:

Use this close reason if a question is a type of identification request that is considered off-topic. Not all ID requests are off-topic, so if you are not sure, please read the linked meta post to distinguish which kinds of ID requests are on-topic or not.

Post notice close description:

This question was closed because it is a type of identification request that is disallowed by the community. It is not currently accepting answers.

Post owner guidance:

Your question looks like a type of identification request that is disallowed by the community. Please read the linked post for the reasoning and alternative resources. If this question is not really an identification request, feel free to edit and clarify the question.

Privileged user guidance:

If you believe this question is not an identification request, help by editing the question to improve it or leave a comment explaining to the post author how to improve their question.


This proposal uses the general FAQ What identification requests are acceptable here? Otherwise, where else can I possibly get helped with it? as the main entry for both announcements for the scope change and also some alternative resources, which hopefully can help the readers and especially the asker more. It is also easier to revise the FAQ in the future in case it is needed.

2516: <p>It has been a while since <a href="https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4491/2516">the decision to deprecate music ID has been made</a>, and while the steps have been finalized, there was kind of a blocker that left the progress in limbo:</p>
<blockquote>
<ol start="2">
<li>Edit ID-request close reason to include a note and meta link about it (basically add a link to this meta post)</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>Thus, <strong>we are going to continue the process by updating the close reason for &quot;ID-request&quot;.</strong></p>
<hr />
<p>Currently, the close reason looks like this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Identification questions</strong> are off-topic, because they tend to attract low-quality and low-effort posts. The community has decided to no longer support these questions. Please refer to <a href="https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2805/what-wed-like-to-do-about-those-gosh-darn-identification-requests-questions">this meta post</a> for additional details.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The most prominent issue is that the meta post is linking to <a href="https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2805/what-wed-like-to-do-about-those-gosh-darn-identification-requests-questions">What we&#39;d like to do about those gosh darn &quot;identification requests&quot; questions</a> which is <em>specifically about identifying anime/manga/other media works only</em>. On the music ID depreciation post itself, it was proposed to add an additional link to that meta post. However, perhaps there is a better proposal to make the close reason more flexible while also being permanent, in case another ID-req scope change happens? <strong>This is where we need your input!</strong></p>
<p>Meanwhile, the Community Managers also suggested using this chance to use the new 5-field audience-specific format. To quote from <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/367025/241919">a Meta Stack Exchange post</a> which has gone through this process,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The fields available to us are limited to <strong>500 characters</strong> with the exception of the first field, so keep that in mind when proposing/making changes!</p>
<p>The format is as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Brief description</strong> (100 characters) - Visible in the close/flag dialog in bold. Should be very succinct, only spanning a couple of words.</li>
<li><strong>Usage guidance</strong> - Tells close voters when to use the close reason. Ideally, this is descriptive enough to cover edge cases, and that detail should inspire confidence in close voters that this reason is the right choice under specified circumstances.</li>
<li><strong>Post notice close description</strong> - Visible to all users, the post notice description should follow the format &quot;<em>This question was <strong>closed</strong> because it is ... It is not currently accepting answers.</em>&quot;</li>
<li><strong>Post owner guidance</strong> - Visible only to the post author, this should explain to the OP why their question was closed, and give detailed information on how to improve their post to get it reopened. Helpful links to the help center would be nice to include.</li>
<li><strong>Privileged user guidance</strong> - Visible to users with the <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions">cast close votes privilege</a> in the post notice on a post closed with this close reason. This should inform close voters on how best to guide the asker in improving their question or inform them when the question should be reopened.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>Feel free to browse some examples from other communities who also have gone through this process to get some idea:</p>
<ul>
<li>Meta Stack Exchange:
<ul>
<li><a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/367025/lets-update-our-only-applicable-to-one-specific-site-close-reason-to-utilize">Let's update our &quot;only applicable to one specific site&quot; close reason to utilize the five available close fields!</a></li>
<li><a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/371518/lets-update-our-blatantly-off-topic-close-reason-to-use-the-5-available-close-f">Let's update our blatantly off-topic close reason to use the 5 available close fields!</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Academia.SE: <a href="https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4710/new-audience-specific-texts-for-our-custom-close-reasons">New audience-specific texts for our custom close reasons</a></li>
<li>GraphicDesign.SE: <a href="https://graphicdesign.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3709/new-audience-specific-texts-for-our-custom-close-reasons">New audience-specific texts for our custom close reasons</a></li>
<li>German.SE: <a href="https://german.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1586/new-audience-specific-texts-for-our-custom-close-reasons">New audience-specific texts for our custom close reasons</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>Similar to the one on Meta Stack Exchange, we are going to follow their method:</p>
<ul>
<li>1 seeded proposal, edit and/or comment on the post for minor changes.</li>
<li>Post a new answer if the change is major/significant.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>We will conclude the discussion by May 8 if there is no objection. So, let’s get the ball rolling!</strong></p>
 2516: <p><strong>Brief description</strong>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Disallowed type of identification request</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Usage guidance</strong>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Use this close reason if a question is <a href="https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4189/what-identification-requests-are-acceptable-here-otherwise-where-else-can-i-po">a type of identification request that is considered off-topic</a>. <em>Not all ID requests are off-topic</em>, so if you are not sure, please read the linked meta post to distinguish which kinds of ID requests are on-topic or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Post notice close description</strong>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This question was <strong>closed</strong> because it is <a href="https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4189/what-identification-requests-are-acceptable-here-otherwise-where-else-can-i-po">a type of identification request that is disallowed by the community</a>. It is not currently accepting answers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Post owner guidance</strong>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Your question looks like a type of identification request that is disallowed by the community. Please read the linked post for the reasoning and alternative resources. If this question is not really an identification request, feel free to edit and clarify the question.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Privileged user guidance</strong>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you believe this question is not an identification request, help by editing the question to improve it or leave a comment explaining to the post author how to improve their question.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p>This proposal uses the general FAQ <a href="https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4189/what-identification-requests-are-acceptable-here-otherwise-where-else-can-i-po">What identification requests are acceptable here? Otherwise, where else can I possibly get helped with it?</a> as the main entry for both announcements for the scope change and also some alternative resources, which hopefully can help the readers and especially the asker more. It is also easier to revise the FAQ in the future in case it is needed.</p>
