Actually I'm not totally sure what is and isn't theoretical linguistics myself, I assumed it would be stuff like X-bar theory and generative grammar and anything with really difficult to read research papers (-:
But it has come up a couple of times that this site didn't have enough of it or that this site is really specifically for it.
So is the site just for theoretical linguistics, and if it is what does that mean as far as what would be on- and off-topic?
Personally, I feel that only going on one area of Linguistics will be limiting the scope too much.
This SE site is about Linguistics, not only a part of it. Plus, if we don't do it, who will?
I vote to keep the scope open to all Linguistics fields.
If we only go for the Theoretical, then the questions about Language acquisition, second language acquisition, computational linguistics, language development, comparative linguistics, even phonetics, just to name a few, will be inevitably off topic.
The site is for "professional linguists and others with an interest in linguistic research and theory," according to the FAQ. Presumably "professional linguists (etc.)" are interested in topics other than theoretical linguistics, like etymology and translation (and knitting and computer programming...) but the unifying trait of that group is theoretical linguistics Q&A. The "if not us, who?" argument is unavailing, both in principle and given the existence of this proposal on Area 51, which can absorb most if not all of the off-topic questions I have seen proposed.
There are theoretical aspects of "language acquisition, second language acquisition, computational linguistics, language development, comparative linguistics, [and] phonetics" (from Alenanno's answer). I don't know why it is believed that anyone has proposed to exclude questions on these topics.
I wrote a fairly extensive answer to this question, which also touches on these issues. I think that it was rightly decided there that questions don't need to be "research level" in order to be welcome here, but I what we are discussing now is whether they need to have some inherent connection to (a certain) linguistic theory.
For concreteness, the only questions which I judged to be clearly off topic so far have been:
This one on the "linguistics wars" was on topic but poorly framed.
For concreteness, can others who weigh in say why they might consider the above questions on topic, and/or mention other questions whose topicality they wish to discuss?
Let me quote Robert's answer in another meta question
Linguistics is the scientific study of human language. Questions about working, applied linguistics would seem to be perfectly appropriate.
But that doesn't exclude questions about linguistic theory. If you feel that there are not enough reach-level questions being ask on this site, ask your questions. The questions that appear on the front page will define what this site is about.
Helping define the site is what being a founding member of a beta site is about.
I think this is the right attitude. This is a generic linguistics Q&A site, limiting it to theoretical linguistic will exclude a myriad of other topics and will greatly reduce the appeal and benefits of this site to a lot of people. If you feel that there are not enough of theoretical linguistic questions, ask them! (and invite other people who can ask good questions and post good answers)
No, I shouldn't think so. "Theoretical linguistics" to me stands in a kind of opposition to (at least) psycholinguistics, language acquisition, linguistic typology, pragmatics, and phonetics; when I hear people use the phrase I assume they are referring only to (pen-and-paper) syntax, morphology, semantics, or phonology. Depending on the kind of research one is talking about, all of the above are subdisciplines of linguistics or at least have a non-empty intersection with linguistics. I certainly would not want to exclude Q&A from any of these areas.
