4
\$\begingroup\$

The question "Were Grungs created for 5e or did they exist before this edition?" has been closed as a duplicate of a question that was closed as unclear.

However, that leaves us now with a question that cannot be answered in either place. What should be done in this case to allow the question to have a valid place to live on this site?

\$\endgroup\$
3
\$\begingroup\$

Fix the duplicate target

I suggest we make the duplicate target a valid question. It seems to have been originally closed because there were two separate questions in the body.

  1. "Were [Grung] created for 5e specifically?"

  2. "If there are any [Grung] deities listed for them, could you include them in the answer?"

Without the second question, the duplicate target is perfect. The second question has also been re-asked by the same user who asked the question we're discussing in an attempt to distinguish between them.

If we remove the second question (the one about deities) from the old Q&A, everything should be golden. Then we could just port over the answers that addressed the second question (or direct the users who answered both to separate their answers to cover both locations).

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ So you're suggesting "fixing" the duplicate so that it better duplicates a subsequent question? \$\endgroup\$ – GcL Oct 17 '18 at 19:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Grosscol No, I want to make it a valid question so that our current duplicate chain is usable. This would remove the other question (the one about deities) from the old Q&A, since with two questions it is Too Broad \$\endgroup\$ – David Coffron Oct 17 '18 at 19:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ Could condense the old question to "Are there any grung deities listed in previous D&D editions?" and then neither are duplicates. \$\endgroup\$ – GcL Oct 17 '18 at 19:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ For the older post, which of the two parts was important to the OP? By the vote of the answers, it seems like the deity part was the most important to the readers. So removing that part of the question borks the most upvoted answer. \$\endgroup\$ – GcL Oct 17 '18 at 19:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Grosscol The new question would then be a duplicate and the highly voted answers would be obsoleted. The answer is still valid. It just includes extra information. \$\endgroup\$ – David Coffron Oct 17 '18 at 19:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ You know, you could just have let the original question stay closed (and maybe wait more than 40 minutes before taking action) but, hey, why make it easy? Best Regards 37067 :-) \$\endgroup\$ – CapnZapp Oct 18 '18 at 9:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @user37067 The community opened the old question without any decision from this meta. Then we scrambled to think of a good solution in response, and I spoke to a mod in chat who agreed that editing it was the best course in the immediate. If you think there was a better course of action, leave an answer and we can revisit. \$\endgroup\$ – David Coffron Oct 18 '18 at 11:16
-1
\$\begingroup\$

Both should be closed as unclear if they're unclear. Pointing to a duplicate just adds a level of indirection to the actual reason for closing the question.

Closing as unclear also offers the poster the option to reword the question to solve the actual problem (clarity).

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Nobody has suggested that the new question is at all unclear though so I'm not sure this solves any issues. Are you suggesting that it is unclear? If so how would you like to see it fixed if at all? And if it's not unclear how would you advise moving forward with the situation? \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Oct 17 '18 at 19:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ I thought the older question was closed for being unclear? \$\endgroup\$ – GcL Oct 17 '18 at 19:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ The old question was closed as "not a real question" which was basically a combined reason for the modern "unclear" and "too broad" \$\endgroup\$ – David Coffron Oct 17 '18 at 19:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ If the old question was closed for <problem> then closing the new one as duplicate just serves to redirect to <problem> instead of directly making it clear to the poster the <problem> that needs to be solved with the question itself. \$\endgroup\$ – GcL Oct 17 '18 at 20:09
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Just to be clear: the current question is not at all unclear. The issue in the old question was that it had multiple questions in it. This new one doesn't. There is no issue for OP to solve. If it were not marked as a duplicate it would not be closed for anything that I can see. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Oct 17 '18 at 20:16
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Okay. So it's not a duplicated because it doesn't have the same problems as the original. If it were a duplicate, I would expect it to have the same problems as the original. \$\endgroup\$ – GcL Oct 17 '18 at 20:21
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The original entry asked two questions at once, and was closed down because of it. When I created a new entry to ask the first of these two questions (on its own) it was promptly shut down as a "duplicate". \$\endgroup\$ – CapnZapp Oct 18 '18 at 9:34
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Also: the main reasons I "re-asked" the two questions (as separate entries) were: 1) because that was what the closing commentary asked for. 2) because my answer to the second half of the original question was deleted/hidden because it wasn't on topic or somesuch. The only way I saw forward was to create two new questions so I could repost my original answer to the second of them. But there's a 40 minute cooldown between posting questions. Before I had the time to ask Q2 Q1 was already shut down as a "duplicate". I'm thinking that is what caused the drama of this thread. \$\endgroup\$ – CapnZapp Oct 18 '18 at 9:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .