9

Quite often Q1 -> A1 already exist, but you have a new similar Q1.5 (which was created, self-closed, downvoted once, auto-deleted, undeleted, meta info removed, and deleted again), which is also clearly answered by A1.
I.e. before:
Q1 -> A1
desired after:
Q1 -> A1
Q1.5 -> A1

Actual names were:
Q1: How to pass an environment variable as a command line parameter in Run/Debug configuration in PyCharm?
Q1.5: How to expand Windows environment path variable in PyCharm Run/Debug Configurations? [duplicate]
A1: <...>-u ${myVar}

One option from the Karl Knechtel's answer is to solve this with the section Alternative question, like here: How can the GPU scaling be disabled on Windows when the drivers provide no such option?. So I suggested an edit to add Q1.5 to Q1. Probably not canonical way though, so rejected.

Then tried to get opinions in the python chat, where one of the opinions was "The SE way for that are multiple questions pointing to a common/canonical dupe target." After that, created a Q1.5 and self-closed it as duplicate of Q1. But then this duplicate was downvoted and auto-deleted - seems also not recognised as convenient.

After deletion, the desired goal is no longer reached: search on the Q1.5 won't lead to A1 (unless already cached over previous months).

But what is a general fluent SE solution?

11
  • If the original question no longer exists why not self answer Q1.5 with A1? Commented Dec 6, 2025 at 13:45
  • @Paulie_D original question does still exist Q1 is here, self answering means you create pure copy-paste duplicate of your or other person's answer A1 (which is questionable even with link to source), and also sometimes half-duplicate question. Added inline links for clarity. Commented Dec 6, 2025 at 16:22
  • 2
    Anecdotal: I have once asked a question, including how it is superficially different enough from and hard to relate to another question, then immediately self-closed it as duplicate of that question. That question has got several upvotes. Since it has a positive score it's not going to be Roomba'd and can serve as a helpful signpost. Commented Dec 7, 2025 at 3:44
  • Please do not misrepresent my chat messages. I very much think your "new" question is a duplicate, for example. Thank you very much. Commented Dec 7, 2025 at 6:02
  • If this isn’t about my messages then don’t link to my messages. I have never discussed the newly posted question of yours. You are misunderstanding general statements by unconditionally applying them to specific cases. Commented Dec 7, 2025 at 6:13
  • @MisterMiyagi This wasn't specifically about one of your messages, more-like confirmation of chat summary, nor I meant any harm and apologise if you got somehow offended. Only goal is to find a good solution with an overview of all related opinions. Commented Dec 7, 2025 at 6:17
  • @MisterMiyagi Saw why you possibly disliked the reference, changed all to anonymous citations. Hope this fixes the issue. Ok to delete 4 messages above after you'll see them. Commented Dec 7, 2025 at 6:47
  • Are you kidding me? You are still quoting me and misrepresenting my words as being about something that was never discussed. Just because the old question isn’t a subset of the new one doesn’t mean the reverse is true as well. Commented Dec 7, 2025 at 7:01
  • @MisterMiyagi at this point's it's just one of the anonymous citations, does not mention you specifically, and I have fair right to mistakenly interpret anonymous citations. I definitely meant no harm nor tried to make anyone's or your day worse. Let just votes decide at this point if this were a bad questions. Commented Dec 7, 2025 at 7:17
  • Is it an idea to modify Q1 into Q1-1.5, by which I mean, editing the original question by adding the additional question? (As the accepted answer also answers Q1.5, that does not invalidate that accepted answer.) Commented Dec 8, 2025 at 12:05
  • @Dominique editing original question was one of the options, but only two people considered it and at this point guideline is very clear: create a duplicate Q1.5 and self-close it. Apparently, there is a fine chance that duplicate will be later deleted, even if meta information is added. Commented Dec 8, 2025 at 14:42

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
5

Then tried to get opinions in the python chat, which ended up with the idea that canonical way is to create a Q1.5 and close it as duplicate of Q1, which I created (link to deleted question, may work without redirect only for moderators). But then this duplicate was downvoted and auto-deleted - seems this concept is also not recognised as convenient.

This is the right way. The problem is that your duplicate also has to be judged on quality.

The auto-deletion required:

  • The question is 30+ days old
  • it has −1 or lower score
  • it has no answers
  • it is not locked
  • it has no active bounty

There is no good reason to lock the question, or put a bounty on it (which would be a temporary measure); and it won't get any younger. So it can be undeleted, but preventing its deletion requires its score to stay out of the negatives. The auto-deletion check is a scheduled task run daily, so someone would have to upvote before the end of day once it's undeleted.

However, we could also question whether Q1.5 is really a duplicate. If reopened, you could write an answer that references A1. The fact that the actual command used doesn't imply that "the answer is the same", especially if there are other answers to Q1 that would be inapplicable to Q1.5.

In any event, meta commentary like "This question is added as dupe for better discoverability." is not suitable. There is some precedent (because I started trying it, full disclosure) for detailed "see also" sections on questions, but the point of these is to guide other duplicate closures, rather than to justify why a question is (or isn't) closed. (And I have definitely experienced some pushback on that anyway.) The quality of the questions (both of them!) would also be improved by using formal, correct grammar.

4
  • Idea of using this section formatting for Not a duplicate section is the most solid of all (to me looks like a feature request), and then I basically ask if similar Alternative questions is reasonable, and you also suggested See also section. Will borrow the formatting, and definitely thanks for settling, copy-paste A1 it is for now. Commented Dec 7, 2025 at 1:34
  • 2
    Please don't "copy-paste A1 … for now" that'll get the answer deleted. Instead write an answer and reference A1. Commented Dec 7, 2025 at 7:58
  • @cafce25 thanks for the hint, if it will be reopened, will do. Honestly, I'd still vote for the Alternative question section, rather than for a duplicate, but it's all about common opinion and standards. Karl Knechtel, thanks for the How-to notice, fixed. Commented Dec 7, 2025 at 8:44
  • 1
    "However, we could also question whether Q1.5 is really a duplicate. If reopened, you could write an answer that references A1. The fact that the actual command used doesn't imply that "the answer is the same", especially if there are other answers to Q1 that would be inapplicable to Q1.5." It would be nice to clear up whether this actually applies before going through the entire process to prepare for this. Based on available information, it’s entirely hypothetical that there could be a different answer and de facto there isn’t. Commented Dec 7, 2025 at 8:55
-2

Voting option:

No duplicates should be created and no edits done to Q1.
This should be solved with a comment under Q1. Or under A1?

Possible drawbacks:

  • search engines may not index comments properly, while the original goal was to improve discoverability of A1
  • recent comments are frequently hidden, a person who reviews the question won't be redirected to A1

This is an opinion from previous chat discussion, feel free to edit this answer to specify where exactly the comment should be placed.

2
  • @Mofi Since you voted for the 2nd deletion, can you please consider this answer as solution or post your own opinion? Commented Dec 8, 2025 at 7:14
  • @marc_s Since you voted for the 2nd deletion, can you please consider this answer as solution or post your own opinion? Commented Dec 8, 2025 at 7:14
-2

Voting option:

No duplicates should be created.
This suggestion to edit Q1 adding Q1.5 was an optimal solution, except should be better formatted and in the bottom of the question.
Examples of similar edits, which were independently used previously, are:
See also, Alternative questions

After the edit, Q1 will look like this:

How to pass an environment variable as a command line parameter in Run/Debug configuration in PyCharm? <Original question>

Alternative question:
How to expand Windows environment path variable in PyCharm Run/Debug Configurations?

2
  • The alternative question example you link to still asks about the same thing. The proposed alternative by the OP and in this answer has a drastically limited scope. Commented Dec 8, 2025 at 6:59
  • 2
    Don't add other question that the OP did not asked. Questions should ask only one question, otherwise might be closed with reason "Needs more focus - This post currently asks multiple different questions..." Commented Dec 8, 2025 at 9:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.