-5
$\begingroup$

This stack exchange is about worldbuilding. Specifically it is for making sure that the features of your world are sensible and realistic/logical. I assumed that this purpose included asking for the function of interesting-looking features that you'd like to use in your worlds. The main reasons I had were:

  • This is a rather fact-based query. It in fact is the only way we know what the function of bodyparts are
  • It is a common way to worldbuild, especially with fantasy, where taking creatures from mythology is rather common
  • A lot of other questions do it

But I have been made aware that these questions are somehow off-topic, because there are other questions that come up with things the other way round or something like that

Can we clear up the rules in this area?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Did you read the comments on your last question before you deleted it? I believe that there was a clear explanation about why it wasn't a good fit. $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Sep 30 at 0:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's hard to tell anything without the original question that raised the issue :(. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Sep 30 at 10:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ As one of those who regularly took part in closing such q(not anymore, set the anatomically correct tag as ignored) - my perception of those was and is - low quality, poorly researched, no efforts put in the research of question, too broad, opinion-based - basically all closure reason we have your questions have those checkmarks. But okay, we all have some needs, exceptions to be made - but it is like a spam factory, like a river of spam mails to your mailbox. And nothing changes, same template - X+Y=combine=>make for me something out of that. There is no scientific reason in doing so but do. $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Sep 30 at 13:46
3
$\begingroup$

Of Course You Can

Anatomical features & structures are the pease & corn of WB. We've had loads of anatomy questions as these are basic worldbuilding questions and fall under "systems".

I disagree with you on one point, in stating that this forum is for " making sure that the features of your world are sensible and realistic/logical." This forum is for helping people build their fictional worlds, yes. But whether those worlds are sensible, realistic & logical or not is completely at the discretion of the worldbuilder.

If this is the question you're referring to, then it appears to be a question about a real world phenomenon for which you haven't provided any context relating to your own fictional world. I'd guess that's the reason it got closed. Real world questions are on topic, but they really ought to be connected to your world in a useful and tangible way so we can help you apply the real to the fictional!

It's up to you I guess: get serious about the worldbuilding and make sure your questions have sufficient context and stop asking questions of idle curiosity.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ It might be better to say "Real world questions can be on topic". $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Sep 30 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ @sphennings -- It might be indeed! But the typical parlance hereabouts seems to be "is on topic", with a number of caveats. E.g., various Meta discussions. If you'd like to modify, you might consider starting up a new discussion! $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Sep 30 at 21:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JoinJBHonCodidact -- My sincerest apologies! I've fixed the error. I honestly don't know how I inserted your name there! $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Oct 4 at 23:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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