This question is due to the nearly-successful effort to close the following question.

This question is strongly related to the following. It differs in that a specific question and the current actions of VTCers are involved. Therefore, this question seeks either a ratification or a renunciation of these questions.

The rules basically state that real-world questions are off-topic. There is also a trend among VTCers that all questions not about building a specific fictional world are to be closed. Thus, asking for a list of resources (offsite websites, books, etc.) would be off-topic. However, the tag has a fairly strong tradition (75 questions asked and only a few closed).

Question: Have the rules changed such that the tag is now invalid and should be discontinued/burned? Or should the question first referenced remain open?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As an initial comment to my own question. It's true that the Stack Exchange model is one-question-one-best-answer. However, worldbuilding is much more creative and subjective than, for example, programming. The worldbuilding-resources tag presumes the possibility that there is no single right answer, and therefore no participant should anticipate having their answer "accepted." I hesitate to suggest a "no-right-answer" tag to warn participants that the Q falls outside the traditional model, but that's the idea that seems to be needed. $\endgroup$ – JBH Jan 8 '18 at 2:40
  • $\begingroup$ It should be noted that in the original text of the post the poster mentioned that they had asked this question before on this site, it was poorly received and they deleted it. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Jan 8 '18 at 3:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sphennings, I'm principally curious about how the tag should be handled. I can actually see the value of some kind of cannonical post that maintains lists of useful worldbuilding resources, in which case most questions with the tag would first get a "have you checked here first?" comment. $\endgroup$ – JBH Jan 8 '18 at 3:06
  • $\begingroup$ One way to do that is a meta question with a community wiki answer with links to every worldbuilding resource question asked on the main site. Or just provide this link when you ask them. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Jan 8 '18 at 3:20
  • $\begingroup$ The rules probably haven't changed. Just changes in fashions of what gets closed. $\endgroup$ – a4android Jan 8 '18 at 8:20
  • $\begingroup$ Related to this Worldbuilding post and is subsequent meta post worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/143606/… worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7273/… $\endgroup$ – Liam Morris May 5 '19 at 1:05

The worldbuilding-resources tag has this description.

This is one of the meta-level tags, and is specifically concerned with questions about books and technological aids to be used for hastening the process of designing and fleshing out your story-setting to make it as beautiful, believable and engrossing as possible. See also the , , , and tags.

Asking about blog(s) and website(s), and specifically the question this Meta post is concerned with, conforms with the criteria of the tag itself. This makes it on-topic.

It is recommended that WBers should pay more attention to the criteria involved in tags and the reasons for closure before shooting from the hip.

  • $\begingroup$ I do wholly agree with your "pay attention to the situation before you vote" comment. $\endgroup$ – James Jan 9 '18 at 22:03
  • $\begingroup$ So, two downvotes. Any chance persons will want to discuss what they think is wrong with my post? $\endgroup$ – a4android Jan 10 '18 at 10:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Wasn't me but I would hazard a guess that your post reads as if the questions are on topic no matter what (even if that wasn't your intent). You can certainly still have bad resource questions. $\endgroup$ – James Jan 10 '18 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ @James No that wasn't my intent. This post specifically addresses the question at issue which is on topic. Anybody can read anything into what some writes; sometimes rightly, other times wrongly. It's impossible to mandate people reading everything the right way. There will always be bad questions in any category. $\endgroup$ – a4android Jan 11 '18 at 1:47

The problem isn't the tag: this question is too broad.

Check out some highly viewed/voted questions with the tag:

I just picked the last 5 questions that had +10 score and weren't closed.

The commonality I see here is specificity. These are all specific questions, "What is a resource for this one thing."

The linked question that kicked off this meta is really broad. What is a site that has some future technology. On the one hand, I can see how it would have a 'best' or 'correct' answer in the spirit of Stack Exchange. On the other hand, that answer could have dozens of links, and would evolve over time, and if I checked it next year it might not be valid.

Even questions can be too broad. If any are, this is the one.

  • $\begingroup$ I guess therein lies the question (well... or another question). When it comes to resources, what does "too broad" mean? From one perspective, it's a question that is almost unclosable by nature. It's simply asking for a list, and one person's "too broad" is another person's, "I use these resources for that purpose all the time." $\endgroup$ – JBH Jan 8 '18 at 2:58
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH If you're asking for lists your question is probably too broad. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Jan 8 '18 at 3:02
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH I voted to leave it open, but I'm a question-closing softie. Its really not very specific, and I'm not optimistic about its survival $\endgroup$ – kingledion Jan 8 '18 at 3:03
  • $\begingroup$ @sphennings, but isn't that the nature of the worldbuilding-resources tag? $\endgroup$ – JBH Jan 8 '18 at 3:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JBH There's a difference between "I need information about Tarot to flesh out my magic system." and "Does anyone know of any blogs of futuristic sci fi-esque technologies?" The first is very specific about what it is asking for. The second is much less so. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Jan 8 '18 at 3:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @kingledion -- yeah, that's a "mea culpa" -- I reflexively saw a naked resource request and forgot what Stack I was dealing with when I wrote up the custom VTC comment that triggered this all :P revisiting this though, you're bang on. $\endgroup$ – Shalvenay Jan 8 '18 at 3:49
  • $\begingroup$ @sphennings The actual question is quite specific. "Does anybody know of a blog or a site that has a "Future Technology of the Week" or "Speculative Technology of the Month" type feature where I can get ideas every week or so." and "Does anybody know of an under the radar site or obscure blog that does this?" Blog or site, both singular. The question indicates it has been hard to find anything. So going broad seems difficult to do. $\endgroup$ – a4android Jan 8 '18 at 8:08
  • $\begingroup$ @kingledion You commented to me this question was too broad. Fortunately, your comment to the OP clarified what you meant. However, it would fail the reasonable person test. The degree of specificity you suggest would be acceptable is too specific. Effectively rendering almost anything too broad. The OP already said it was near impossible to find anything of kind that was being sought. Now that may of itself have been too specific to find what was wanted. Your specific questions being broader might have been more successful. $\endgroup$ – a4android Jan 8 '18 at 8:14

You must log in to answer this question.

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