2

Proposal: Worldbuilding

This proposal was closed because it is supposedly not a viable proposal. But I think I could use a little more explanation here, because it seems to me like it could very well be a viable proposal. I'll admit many of the early questions posted were not answerable (there were a lot of opinion-based questions that wouldn't have a correct answer) but that isn't proof that the site is not viable.

Could some of the people who voted to close this site please share their thoughts on why they closed the site?

2

Speaking as a third party, I have no idea what this proposal is about. It describes "writers, video game designers, movie creators." Does that put this in the realm of science fiction? Or is it about the forward-looking science behind terraforming? Or the science behind science fiction?

The only answerable question(s) are largely circular that depend entirely on what <worldbuilding> is. For example:

  • "How do I know when I've done enough planning to start implementing my <world-building project>?"
  • "I have an idea for a <world-building project> that's too big…"

Before (and if) you try again (?), I would suggest thinking about precisely what this proposal is about and the specific (i.e. not overly broad) questions you would actually like to ask on the site.

I don't know if this proposal was "not viable" or simply "poorly defined". But there's a brief description and example questions to define the scope of what you have in mind. That's all we have to go by.

3
  • 1
    Your points are quite valid, but in response, I don't think this proposal was given anywhere near enough time to sort these things out. This is one of those recurring problems with Stack Exchange and Area 51 overall. Why can't proposals get put on hold instead of flat out closed? We didn't have a chance to flesh things out, and now I'm not even able to add in some questions that I think would both be on topic and good questions.
    – rbwhitaker
    Jan 7 '14 at 18:15
  • "On hold" and "closed" are often used synonymously (for discussions like this), but I see your point about giving a "poorly defined" proposal time to flesh out before closing it summarily as "not viable." I'll reopen it, but I would suggest getting to work quickly because, as it stands, this proposal is incoherently defined. Good luck! Jan 7 '14 at 18:29
  • 2
    @RobertCartaino: Just have a peek at the progress of the beta... "not viable..."
    – SF.
    Mar 24 '15 at 10:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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