Unfortunately, it is impossible for us to know whether they are false friends unless the OP provides an original translation.
"Fixing" false friend questions.
If you know of languages where this is a false friend issue, comment stating that this is the case
I believe we have a wide range of native speakers who are bilingual, or have some degree of fluency in other languages. I noticed the control/inspect issue, and my French isn't that bad.
If you don't know of any languages where this is a false friend issue (and no-one else has pointed this out), comment with the definition(s) and link.
I think this is the only reasonable course of action - we can't expect and allow for false friends in languages all the time.
If we do the above, then firstly: only the first option may be a change to our habitual and usual activities. Secondly, if we encourage option one, then these questions should be addressed faster.
As for closure, there are a couple of considerations to be taken into account:
Is the source language spoken by few people?
This is a crude measure, but I think it's a reasonable assumption that more widely-spoken languages that have false friends are more likely to cause repeat questions than languages with fewer speakers; a false friend in French is probably more likely to be a repeat issue than a false friend in Walpiri.
A language that is widely-spoken is probably more useful left open than a language with few speakers.
A question about a false friend in Walpiri is a good candidate for closure under this test.
Is it obvious that the meanings are unrelated?
Yes, this is subjective, but most things are. If the language the meanings are absurdly, incredibly unrelated, then closure is appropriate.
magasin(fr)/magazine(en) is a good candidate for closure under this test, but not under the previous one.
- If the answers to both of these questions is yes, then the question is a good candidate for closure.
- If the answer to both questions is no, then the question should probably be retained, because if the meanings are similar, and should be retained because it is a widely-spoken language and may attract repeat questions in the future.
- If the only the answer to the first question is no, then it depends on how obviously different the meanings are: something that means sky in the source language and earth in English, for example, is probably fine for deletion. Something that means soil in the source and earth in English is probably not.
- If only the answer to the second question is no, then it depends on how few people speak the language. This is largely a judgement call, but if you can recall from memory more than one other question about, or from a speaker of, that language, then that's probably enough to leave the question open.
Comments? I think this set of criteria is fine, and their subjectivity isn't inherently a problem, since so many matters in language are subjective.
Also: native speakers can be too quick to judge, I agree. And dictionaries aren't much help - native speakers know which definitions to ignore, since, well, they know which sense of a word applies. Telling people to ignore certain senses is probably bad advice, and too localised - they'll come back next time. But as a native speaker, it's difficult, if not impossible, to explain how we know certain senses apply and others don't.