This issue arises with this question.

Theoretically, there can be an unlimited number of questions of the type-

Find the solution to a magic square with each side and diagonal adding up to X.

Of course, we don't want to fill the site with the same question with slight variations. In many other cases, we could close it as duplicate with an appropriate question. But, in this case, this isn't an exact duplicate of any appropriate question and I can't see any other appropriate reason to close.

My suggestion is: create a standard question of this type and use it as reason to close as duplicate for future questions. This one comes pretty close to it. But I'm not sure if this is a perfect referral question.

I am of course talking only about standard magic square puzzles. This post doesn't apply to puzzles with a twist or extra constraints.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ At least for this question, the post you mention really is a pretty perfect duplicate. The numbers are simply offset by one, and the same pattern is used. I VdTC as a duplicate for that reason instead of "textbook math". As far as a broader dupe-target goes.. while that question isn't great for a target, the answer given would work. It might be a good idea to edit the question into a slightly broader one rather than adding a new question. $\endgroup$
    – Set Big O
    Sep 10 '15 at 17:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Geobits I suppose you are right. But still the general issue holds, by the way is there any way to change the close reason? $\endgroup$
    – Rohcana
    Sep 10 '15 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ I think mods can do it if flagged for attention, or it can be reopened/reclosed. The second method would require new close voters, though, and I have very rarely seen it done. $\endgroup$
    – Set Big O
    Sep 10 '15 at 18:21
  • $\begingroup$ The easiest way to change a close reason to a very different reason is to flag it, and we'll take care of it (though please avoid doing this for minor things). $\endgroup$
    – user20
    Sep 10 '15 at 20:37
  • $\begingroup$ Same would go with the recent tetromino questions which were basically all about fitting tetrominos in a set area with different variations of the rules on how you can place them. I would suggest maybe have a rule that for a given puzzle that is a variation of a previous puzzle, the puzzle has to be linked etc...? I'm not entirely sure if it would change much but at the same time at least they can be easily found and all... $\endgroup$ Sep 24 '15 at 19:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .