This came up recently on this question about the the etymology of イギリス. We've already got a question about イギリス vs. イングランド, where the answer happens to contain the etymology as well.

In this case, the matter gets even more complicated. The main question is about イギリス vs. イングランド, but it also says: And as a side question, where does the word イギリス come from?

Answers often need to elaborate on a certain aspect and may contain more details than might have been asked for. In general, should we mark a question as a duplicate of another and different question if one of its answers includes the answer?

Should such a question be marked as a duplicate? Should we edit the old question or title? Should we do something else; or nothing at all?

A few more examples:

As a side question, I was wondering if we should we remove side questions from questions?

  • 1
    Related question: meta.japanese.stackexchange.com/q/897/9199 basically says that even if such questions are marked as duplicates, they should not be deleted.
    – Kimball
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 12:48
  • I would argue in principle that side questions be made into their own questions as to better assist those looking for answers. Even though the side questions are generally related, in some instances they seem to be somewhat removed from the initial topic. Instead of marking as a duplicate, would it be possible to propose say a "in more detail" link between questions, with the one that covers one question specifically and comprehensively being referred to in the larger one? Commented Mar 27, 2015 at 0:16
  • Another recent example:japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/23607 The question is asking about different kanji in general, I've linked to one question that is about さがす in particular; one answer includes some remarks on the general situation. Is this a duplicate?
    – blutorange
    Commented Apr 5, 2015 at 7:51
  • @the-wandering-coder Sounds like a good suggestion to me. On german.stackexchange.com they've got a similar notice they can add: "This question may already have an answer in German here: ...". Or in reference to the example above, perhaps we should introduce some notice like "There is a question here that treats this issue/problem in general: ..." ?
    – blutorange
    Commented Apr 5, 2015 at 7:55
  • @blutorange Personally I wouldn't consider the link you included in that question to be duplicate, rather a more focussed analysis of a word that meets the criteria of the general question. It was for that reason that I proposed the more in depth type link above. Specifically in the case of Japanese (as well as Chinese and maybe Korean), some Kanji have completely different meanings and mixing them up can sometimes lead to insult rather than conversation. Commented Apr 6, 2015 at 0:10
  • Using your example, the "Multiple common Kanji for a word" post attempts to ask in general what the difference between common Kanji and those not listed as either common or outdated, whereas your link provides specifics on さがす in which both 探す and 捜す although similar, carry different nuances. Thus the question is more in depth, focussing on one Kanji pair, rather than in general. Again, this is more personal opinion and I can't say I speak on behalf of the community. Commented Apr 6, 2015 at 0:12
  • @the-wandering-coder We need to discuss and share our opinions so that we can find out what the community wants, so I appreciate your opinion. Meta should be a lot more active ;) And yes, I agree with you in regards to the example "Multiple common Kanji for a word". The questions are most definitely different, it's just that one of the two answers contains a short paragraph on multiple kanji in general, but that shouldn't make it a duplicate. Perhaps a new meta questions with a feature-request should be made?
    – blutorange
    Commented Apr 6, 2015 at 6:35
  • @blutorange Thanks for the encouragement ^_^ I am not too familiar with how everything works here just yet (I only recently joined up), but if you made a feature request I would be behind it. Commented Apr 7, 2015 at 1:28


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .