user9943: The borders between different sites is always an interesting point of dispute. The following question was [mod-] closed.
Why is wind cold for humans?
It was basically closed because it was about physics. I commented that it was about sensory systems and psychophysics, making it as much psychology as physics. 
Another user said: But it's not about sensory systems, [it] is [about] the perception of cold [just like a] thermometer [held] on the skin [would be] report[ing] the same thing.
To which I say that it is exactly my point and the reason it should not be closed, as this question is borderline Biology. If one asks what the wavelengths are recognized by the retinal photoreceptors, it is also not closed because it is physics (closed perhaps because of being homework and the likes, but just as an example).   
I am of the opinion this question should be re-opened. Further, a borderline question like this does not deserve mod-closure, and to me it is an excellent borderline-defining Biology-inclusive question. 

user3340: Please note that it was not just closed by a mod. It already had 3 close votes. 
I agree that this can be edited a bit (some clarifications in the question) to suit biology. You should vote to reopen it. 
In general, before editing such posts we should ask ourselves if:

that was the intention of OP 
it changes the question drastically

IMO, the OP should change the question based on the suggestions. We should definitely leave our suggestions but it is up to the OP to decide whether they want to accept those suggestions or not.

user16598: A question at the border between two SE topics can sometimes be understood as seeking a different kind of answer depending on which SE it's posted on.
In this case, posting the question on Physics.SE would ask for an explanation in terms of physics: for example, losing heat through evaporation. Posting the question here would ask for an explanation in terms of biology: the skin receptors involved, how perceiving wind as cold figures into homeostasis, etc. 
As it was, the OP was happy with an answer that was mostly in terms of physics. It's hard for a person asking the question to know in advance that the answer might mostly be about physics, of course. Knowing the answer can't be a precondition for asking a question. Something helpful you can do in this case is post a comment that the answer will mostly involve physics, preferably with a brief summary of the main concept, and suggest migrating the question to Physics.SE.
That also might lead the OP to add some detail to the question, which could clarify the kind of answer they want, like "Is the loss of heat through evaporation enough to explain the perceived drop in temperature?" 
Of course, explaining a little physics or chemistry is not such a bad thing, and probably inevitable in biology. To be on topic, such an explanation should be part of the answer, not the whole answer. The explanation can include a link suggesting where to find more information about the relevant physics or chemistry, to keep that part of the answer brief.

9943: <p>The borders between different sites is always an interesting point of dispute. The following question was [mod-] closed.</p>

<p><a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/35544/why-is-wind-cold-for-humans">Why is wind cold for humans?</a></p>

<p>It was basically closed because it was about physics. I commented that it was about sensory systems and <em>psycho</em>physics, making it as much <em>psychology</em> as physics. </p>

<p>Another user said: <code>But it's not about sensory systems, [it] is [about] the perception of cold [just like a] thermometer [held] on the skin [would be] report[ing] the same thing.</code></p>

<p>To which I say that it is <strong><em>exactly my point</em></strong> and the reason it should not be closed, as this question is borderline Biology. If one asks what the wavelengths are recognized by the retinal photoreceptors, it is also not closed because it is physics (closed perhaps because of being homework and the likes, but just as an example).   </p>

<p>I am of the opinion this question should be re-opened. Further, a borderline question like this does not deserve mod-closure, and to me it is an excellent borderline-defining Biology-inclusive question. </p>
 3340: <p>Please note that it was not just <strong>closed by a mod</strong>. It already had 3 close votes. </p>

<p>I agree that this can be edited a bit (some clarifications in the question) to suit biology. You should vote to reopen it. </p>

<p>In general, before editing such posts we should ask ourselves if:</p>

<ul>
<li>that was the intention of OP </li>
<li>it changes the question drastically</li>
</ul>

<p>IMO, the OP should change the question based on the suggestions. We should definitely leave our suggestions but it is up to the OP to decide whether they want to accept those suggestions or not.</p>
 16598: <p>A question at the border between two SE topics can sometimes be understood as seeking a different kind of answer depending on which SE it's posted on.</p>

<p>In this case, posting the question on Physics.SE would ask for an explanation in terms of physics: for example, losing heat through evaporation. Posting the question here would ask for an explanation in terms of biology: the skin receptors involved, how perceiving wind as cold figures into homeostasis, etc. </p>

<p>As it was, the OP was happy with an answer that was mostly in terms of physics. It's hard for a person asking the question to know in advance that the answer might mostly be about physics, of course. Knowing the answer can't be a precondition for asking a question. Something helpful you can do in this case is post a comment that the answer will mostly involve physics, preferably with a brief summary of the main concept, and suggest <em>migrating</em> the question to Physics.SE.</p>

<p>That also might lead the OP to add some detail to the question, which could clarify the kind of answer they want, like "Is the loss of heat through evaporation enough to explain the perceived drop in temperature?" </p>

<p>Of course, explaining <em>a little</em> physics or chemistry is not such a bad thing, and probably inevitable in biology. To be on topic, such an explanation should be part of the answer, not the whole answer. The explanation can include a link suggesting where to find more information about the relevant physics or chemistry, to keep that part of the answer brief.</p>
