There are some questions that need to be pretty broad. They fit the site, they follow the rules, but their implications inherently make them too "broad" because answering a bit of it will lead into a chasm of answering a bunch of othe questions.

For example, "What are the effects of higher gravity on a terrestrial planet?" This question can be taken as need lots and lots of explanation as little changes that this would effect would acculmulate and create a complex set of interactions. However, regardless of those complexities, we can still say things like "Mountains would be lower and Animals would be stockier, because the gravity pulls them down" and this could be more than enough of an answer for the particular question, because they're looking for the broad ramifications, not the "too many possible things to take into account" answer. I think this being possible and being understood as what is being looked for is acceptable. And it is much better than saying "no you can't ask that because there are too many variable in specific" when we know that regardless of all those variables you still get a pretty simple and predictable general general outcome.

So why not just add a tag that helps explain that the questioner is not asking for the nitty gritty details that they can fill in for themselves, but a more generalized answer? I think that without something like this it harms the ability for people to ask questions that would help them. In a scenario where I'm making animals that exist on or come from a high gravity planet for example, or are trying to describe features of such the important thing I'm looking for are the generalities, not the nitty gritty details. Adding a tag that says as much would just help, just like the "hard-science" tag, some people want to know all the exact details of the subject, other people not so much. I think having a tag would benefit people and would also help by having a contrast tag for ones like "hard-science" (which come to think of it is a bad name for it, changing it to something like "detailed" might be a good idea, because "hard-science" to most people simply means it is realistically possible within known laws of science, not that they want a ton of detail to say why it is, but that's another discussion)

  • $\begingroup$ Are you also advocating for the removal of the "too broad" VTC reason? $\endgroup$
    – user10945
    Feb 23 '17 at 6:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Pᴇᴛᴇ not exactly, The "too broad" reasoning is there because the answer is too large to expect to get an answer for or too complicated to answer simply or without arbitrary opinions. However there are questions that are complicated and would take a lot to explain, but never the less are well within the reasonable answering capacity when looked at from the point of view of what the questioner is trying to get at which is encompassed by that broad question, but does not need a over detailed answer nor is the answer opinion based. $\endgroup$
    – Durakken
    Feb 23 '17 at 7:04
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, there's a potential problem right there. If someone uses a "broad" tag in their question and it gets VTCd as "too broad", it'll inevitably lead to confusion and frustration with users. Not to mention the extra brain work for queue reviewers. The term "Broadness" is subjective in itself, having two levels of "broad" would just fry my brain. $\endgroup$
    – user10945
    Feb 23 '17 at 7:10
  • $\begingroup$ And I don't really see the point of a "General" tag either. To my mind, tags are there to fairly tightly categorize questions for searching and related question queries. I can't see "General" being useful. $\endgroup$
    – user10945
    Feb 23 '17 at 7:13
  • $\begingroup$ @Pᴇᴛᴇ By that argument. hard-science should not be a tag. It's an instruction for answering, not categorizing. It would be nice to have a separate tag style like area for that, but there isn't and we already have a tag that does it so rejection on grounds that another tag does the same just doesn't work for a legit answer to why not do this. I agree that it would be confusing though, but I think we should come up with something to fix this issue. $\endgroup$
    – Durakken
    Feb 23 '17 at 7:57
  • $\begingroup$ Science minded users would still be searching for head-science questions to answer, but I get your point. My basic point here is that having a "broad" tag would be confusing to most users and queue reviewers. $\endgroup$
    – user10945
    Feb 23 '17 at 8:00
  • $\begingroup$ Wouldn't it be a meta tag rather than a "real" tag. $\endgroup$
    – Sefa
    Feb 23 '17 at 10:06
  • $\begingroup$ I'd like to say, I upvoted because the question is worth answering to. Even though I also think the meta-trinity should stay as such. $\endgroup$
    – PatJ
    Feb 23 '17 at 15:37
  • $\begingroup$ If only you had read this discussion ... meta.worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3337/… $\endgroup$ Feb 25 '17 at 17:29

No, this sort of meta tag is a barrier to entry and intuitive understanding of the site. In general we avoid meta tags (there have been discussions as to why in the past if you search for them) and there would have to be a strong reason to add any more.

If you are asking a "broad overview" question then state in the question that you are looking for a broad overview.

Be aware though that "broad overview" can easily degenerate into "list questions".

See also:


This site is temporarily in read only mode and not accepting new answers.

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