Recently, I've noticed a lot of new questions with "Feasibility" written in the title.
Generally, the community consensus is that "feasibility" questions about sci-fi ideas are on-topic because they produce relevant information that can help people build fictional worlds. Some recent feasibility questions that seem to fit the accepted style include:
- Feasibility of a creature that leaves behind crystal like formations
- Feasibility of Making a Quantum Destabilizer
However, I've noticed a string of feasibility questions structured differently:
- Feasibility of a species based on Nyarlethotep
- Feasibility of a species based on Yog Sothoth
- Feasibility of nurgle
- Feasibility of tzeentch
The latter questions follow this format: "here is an existing creature from a work of fiction, and here are its attributes; how can it be explained?" I'm reminded of the Anatomically Correct Series, which exists to help users
create fictional creatures in a realistic evolutionary way.
The problem is, these questions seem less geared toward creating
fictional creatures and more toward explaining existing ones.
Are the aforementioned questions on-topic? Are "explain-existing-creature" questions fundamentally different from the Anatomically Correct Series because they are narrow and off-topic, or are they equally helpful because they provide scientific explanations that others may find useful?
EDIT: Here's some clarification of my perspective based on VLAZ's post: I think part of what irks me most is the apparent ease of inserting an existing creature into a post for the sake of generating questions. A lot of questions on this site don't seem to be used to make actual fictional worlds, but when it's possible to functionally copy-and-paste existing works of fiction to generate posts, it seems especially unproductive.