4

This question on filetypes for Markdown is close to being closed as a duplicate of this question on the .sage/Python extension type. To be fair, both the theme of the question (associating a filetype with an extension) and the answers are very similar.

Is it OK for this type of duplicate to be "closed as a duplicate"? Should we be marking them as such?

| |
8

Yes, mark them as duplicate.

A question will be put on hold, but not removed. People still end up there through internet searches, and the like.

So we could have, for example:

  • How do I tell Vim to recognize *.foo files as a *.bar file?

Which then may have the duplicates:

  • How do I open .md files as Markdown?
  • How do I open .sage files as Python?
  • ...etc...

Putting a question "on hold" only prevents new answers, it does not prevent upvoting or editing of the existing questions.

Having one canonical question like this means we can have one (or a few) very good and extensive answers on that question, while the How do I open .md files as Markdown? will usually be answered with just a snippet of code...

| |
  • 2
    This is the way to go when you've got several question potentials that are all the same problem, just looking from different angles. It helps that if you do have some such canonical question on file extensions for example, that when you close a newcomer's question as a duplicate of it, help explain the action in comments so that they understand why you're "closing" their question. – Grace Note Feb 5 '15 at 21:02
1

I don't think so.

In terms of maintaining a resource for people faced with the same problems, having both discussions is useful.

| |
  • 1
    They are both useful, that's why questions marked as duplicate are not deleted, but put on hold. – Martin Tournoij Feb 5 '15 at 21:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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