10
\$\begingroup\$

See this meta question, where two questions covering similar topics got merged:

However, the merge was in error, as the Permanent vs Until Dispelled question does not apply to the Teleportation Circle question, since the duration of Teleportation Circle is not Permanent.

To clarify the issue with merging these questions: Suppose that the answer to the Circle question is "Yes, because permanent means until dispelled and permanent in the name means it's a duration of permanent." This answer makes sense under the Circle question, but not the Difference question.

On the other side, the stance I take: "No, because it's not a Permanent duration spell, and only the spell itself (which lasts one round) can be dismissed." This answer makes even less sense under the question it got merged into. (As a side note, Sage Advice: Can you use dispel magic on the creations of a spell like animate dead or affect those creations with antimagic field? seems to agree, or at least hint at RAI agreeing.)

Should we un-merge these questions?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Can you explain a bit more about what you mean? The spell certainly has the word permanent in it: "You can create a permanent teleportation circle by casting this spell in the same location every day for one year". If you want to make a case saying the spell isn't qualifying to be merged because of mechanical reasons you should probably go into a bit more detail on what issue you are seeing here. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Dec 5 '18 at 14:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ Actually, I think I agree that merging them was not necessary. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Dec 5 '18 at 14:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ It is possible, what the comments above tell me is that it's not immediately obvious whether they should be. So I'm going to lightly edit the question to get at "should these two be duplicates?" Then we voters with close/reopen privileges can hash out a consensus in answers to this post and vote accordingly. Let me know if this is not what you'd intended. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Dec 5 '18 at 14:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60 That works. As a side note, considering many of the answers don't fit in the new question, was merging even the right decision if it's determined that they are dupes? \$\endgroup\$ – Duncan X Simpson Dec 5 '18 at 15:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DuncanXSimpson can you still explain the issue you are seeing in further detail though still? I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make/what issue you are seeing with the merge. If you could clarify that I think it would be helpful. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Dec 5 '18 at 15:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ (@DuncanXSimpson not going to lie: I haven't even looked at any of the questions yet, and am not sure when I'll get time to do that--I'm just trusting the metazinry to basically take care of this one and let us mods know if we need to push a button at some point.) \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Dec 5 '18 at 15:40
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Just a note: mods can’t unmerge questions. We’d have to call in a Community Manager to handle such a thing. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Dec 6 '18 at 3:13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie Just as a point of reference, does that mean that that makes unmerging a less desirable option to fix a mis-merger or are you just pointing out where the power to fix this lies? For example, I could imagine another solution being to just open a new question along the lines of the previously merged one and start anew (and maybe delete answers on the old one). In other words, is suggesting/voting to unmerge an unrealistically inconvenient solution such that we should search for another one? \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Dec 6 '18 at 3:39
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Rubiksmoose It’s just a note about the technical challenge. It’s doable, just good to know that mods looking around for how won’t find a button for it. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Dec 6 '18 at 3:54
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie It seems the community wants them unmerged. How do we (or if it's a mod thing, could you please) page a community manager to unmerge these questions? \$\endgroup\$ – Duncan X Simpson Dec 10 '18 at 22:10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @DuncanXSimpson I can’t do it right now. Raise custom a flag on the Q here to send a message to the mod team. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Dec 10 '18 at 22:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie Will do, thanks! \$\endgroup\$ – Duncan X Simpson Dec 10 '18 at 22:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ A CM (animuson) has graciously done the unmerge. I’ve reopened the second to un-mark it as duplicate. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Dec 19 '18 at 0:29
2
\$\begingroup\$

I've sent in a request that staff unmerge these, as it can't be done by diamond moderators.

\$\endgroup\$
16
\$\begingroup\$

The Q&As should be unmerged

I'm going to attempt to not go too deep into the specific talk of the mechanics here, but these posts are definitely different enough that they should be different posts.

The main reason is that there is a bunch of teleportation circle specific discussion that is unique from the general argument of what it means to be permanent. For example, there are some that interpret the spell as creating a nonmagical entity which remains after the spell goes away and which is permanent. And there are those that would disagree with that. However, the discussion cannot happen on the general Permanent vs Until Dispelled post because it is completely irrelevant there. This is one example, but really only one is needed. A question and its answers need to be practically identical to be a good fit for merging and these definitely are not. And the aforementioned discussion is not tangential to solving the question either; it is essential and merging with the general eliminates the possibility of talking about it completely.

If you aren't convinced, take a loot at this chat and read through that. It gives a very good presentation of both sides to this argument and which have no place in the new merge.

This is pretty obvious also when you look at the answers that were merged into it because the ones trying to bring up this point look ridiculously out of place and seem not to answer the question at all (because they aren't, they are answering a different question).

For the same reasons, I also think they should not even be duped.

They should be unmerged.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Exactly the point I was trying to make, and why I was hesitant to post arguments here. \$\endgroup\$ – Duncan X Simpson Dec 5 '18 at 17:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DuncanXSimpson it was good you clarified though because without a solid differentiating argument they would have been duplicates at least. Now I don't think they are either. You did a good job riding that line in the question. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Dec 5 '18 at 17:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yep, I understand that now. \$\endgroup\$ – Duncan X Simpson Dec 5 '18 at 17:27

You must log in to answer this question.

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