Question about

Explicit/Implicit Relationships

This was closed as "not a real question".

What exactly wasn't clear in the question? Yes, a little more context from the slide could have been added. But, I found this an interesting question and was getting ready to write up an answer.

2 Answers 2


Personally I thought the question was a bit vague/ambiguous, that's why I voted for "not a real question".

The fact that the question relies on a slideshow held on an external site also means it only stays useful if that external site continues to host that page (which this site has no control over). As you said a bit more context would have been nice, but if the link rots then the question loses context altogether :/

Plus a quick Google of the question title produces several documents which explain the differences between those types of relationships very well (I've just read a couple of them), and you could argue that the question falls outside of the scope of Drupal as it's database theory as you rightly said.

I'm not arguing that though, in fact if the question was to be updated with the necessary context then it would indeed be quite interesting and I'd be the first (or second, I think you've beaten me to it) to vote for it to be re-opened.

  • I did a pass at rewriting it.
    – mpdonadio Mod
    Aug 21, 2012 at 18:27
  • Cool, I've voted to re-open
    – Clive Mod
    Aug 21, 2012 at 18:32
  • 1
    @MPD It's been re-opened in case you haven't seen. The system works :)
    – Clive Mod
    Aug 21, 2012 at 21:56
  • Clive, could the same result not have been achieved with less community overheads via a comment? e.g. "So you're asking what explicit/implicit relationships mean in Drupal? Please copy the slide text and edit it into your question, else this question won't be visible to others on search sites and won't make sense in future if that page is taken down" Advantages: -The new user and others who read that question learn good SE practices, -The system doesn't depend on someone (MPD) having the energy to open a meta thread, -No extra time spent questioning or explaining mods' reasoning in meta Aug 22, 2012 at 16:58
  • @user568458 To put it another way, the system also doesn't depend on someone having to go to an external site, look through a slideshow to get enough context to know if the question is viable for DA, then coming back and commenting accordingly. As it happens in this case a user (MPD) did do the leg work and felt that the question should be re-opened...so he posted as such on meta, and has now re-written the question into something that will be valuable to the site. I'd say that proves the worth of opening the meta discussion nicely :)
    – Clive Mod
    Aug 22, 2012 at 17:10
  • @user568458 BTW I'm not a mod in case you thought I was...kiamlaluno (author of the other answer) is though so you can probably take that as a more authoritative response
    – Clive Mod
    Aug 22, 2012 at 17:17
  • 1
    @user568458 The Stack Exchange's motto is "close early, close often." A question can still be edited, and re-opened if it fits the Stack Exchange site where it has been asked. Closing a question has the effect to avoid new answers are added, which probably should be avoided until the OP doesn't change the question to provide the necessary information, or to make the question less broad.
    – apaderno Mod
    Aug 23, 2012 at 16:14
  • So by "not a real question" you really mean "not a well-defined question". Are you sure that's what the designation is supposed to mean? (If so, SE should change it to "not a well-defined question".)
    – iconoclast
    Aug 24, 2012 at 17:47
  • @Brandon I kind of agree with you there, SE defines not a real question as: It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.. The description leaves a fair bit of room for interpretation, and at first glance the phrase 'Not a Real Question' probably wouldn't seem to cover all of those possibilities
    – Clive Mod
    Aug 24, 2012 at 17:54
  • 1
    @Clive: thanks for clearing that up. Wow: SE's description of "unreal" questions is "ambiguous, vague, incomplete, [and] overly broad"! They really need to change this, because telling someone their very genuine request for information is not real is extremely insulting, and says (in effect) "I know better than you: you think you wanted to know the answer to that but I can tell that you're just playing games."
    – iconoclast
    Aug 24, 2012 at 18:01
  • 1
    @Brandon I can see how that might happen, yeah. If you feel strongly enough about it you could always open a feature request on the main meta stack overflow website (if you can't find a discussion about it on there already. I wouldn't be surprised if there already was). Just remember that downvotes are different on meta sites, people will downvote even if they mildly disagree with what you're proposing so if you do post this on the main meta be prepared to justify your case, and don't take the downvotes personally ;)
    – Clive Mod
    Aug 24, 2012 at 18:09

To me, the question was essentially about the meaning of implicit, and explicit, and not in the specific context. The fact it didn't have any context, except the link to the external site, which could be lost anytime the link would return a 404, or 403 error page, lead me to think the question was not constructive, and too generic.
I noticed the question when I was handling a flag raised for that question from a user who thought it was not constructive.

I have re-opened the question. I am more than happy to give anybody the opportunity of giving a detailed answer.

The question is given for a specific context I think is related to Drupal: relationships between Drupal entities. It can be explained with the database theory, but that doesn't make the question less related to Drupal.

You must log in to answer this question.

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