One thing after the recent astrobiology discussion was clear: our policy that "anything on topic on the old astrophysics site is on topic here" seems to be a bit vague and under question.
While the wording does not make it clear, this was the initial meaning behind this policy: "The topics which are allowed on the old astronomy site are on topic here too", with no statement about the other factors (broadness, etc) which can get a question closed.
What are your thoughts on this interpretation? Does it need to be tweaked?
In addition, we might want to review this rather vague-in-retrospect policy and come up with a definitive replacement. Something like "astrophotography, observational astronomy, and astrobiology" are on topic, with a definition for what we count as "astrophotography / etc".
For example, this comment raises a valid point:
+1 for pointing out that this is biology, not physics. Astrobiology deals with things like "What signatures does photosynthesis imprint in planetary spectra?" or "Do we know of any organisms that could withstand the UV radiation in the habitable zone of an M dwarf?" And yes, I'm speaking as an astrophysicist.
A lot of that discussion revolved around the question being astrobiology and thus on topic, however the above point seems to throw a wrench in the works.
Given that such confusions exist, I suggest we come with definitive criteria as to what is considered "on topic astronomy".
Or possibly have a second look at this policy in general, since the "we are an astronomy and physics" site never really took off.