The new question Why is "Blue" a traditional dog's name? pushes the limits of scope that is currently in place. I can see valid arguments to allow this to be in or out of scope. A meta discussion is probably appropriate at this time.

  • Related discussion: Should questions about history/descent of pets be on topic? – Spidercat Oct 20 '14 at 16:30
  • Why do you think this is different from the earlier discussion and warrants another discussion? – Zaralynda Oct 20 '14 at 17:04
  • @Zaralynda To me dog names felt to me beyond the history scope discussed in the related link. I like the question (and Matt has now posted a great answer) but I envisioned potential questions of scope, and wanted to have better place to discuss it than in comments. The related question's accepted answer says "some history", this feels farther than that. Acceptance of this question implies "all history" where quality, reference supported answers could be posted are in scope. – James Jenkins Oct 20 '14 at 17:14
  • I'm still not sure why you think this question is not a regular history question. Can you put it into words other than "this feels farther than" some history. (in other words, why is this meta question not a duplicate of the earlier question) – Zaralynda Oct 20 '14 at 17:41
  • @Zaralynda if you think the "blue" question is covered by "History" then, I must have been mistaken in my assumptions of potential scope conflict. I don't have objects to closing it as a dupe. – James Jenkins Oct 20 '14 at 17:51
  • I tend to agree that's covered by "history" too. :) – John Cavan Oct 20 '14 at 20:25

Browse other questions tagged .