This question already has an answer here:

I had started to write a question where I felt I was just going to repeat myself in reviews.

Well I've been in the city since I was two and I certainly wouldn't say that I was stuck in a rut... stuck in a rut ... stuck in a rut... stuck in a rut...

There are things that I have been seeing in several questions where my suggestion would be the same. I am tempted then to make, and save, some custom info blocks that I can use.

I don't however want my answers to just be copy pastes of myself (code biting so to speak).

I then saw in the similar post sections My reviews feel like a broken record which then led me to Justify your review!. The accepted answer put forward the idea for make a canonical for such concepts that might be repeated. The suggested conditions of which I will re-post here with a minor change:

  • Find a good looking question which uses using <>;
  • Post an answer to this question which only addresses this specific issue.

The answer should be very detailed, in-depth, and specific.

Now this answer becomes the canonical answer on using <>.

When new questions are posted with a bad use of using <>, answers can comment:

Don't use using <> and have a link pointing back to this canonical, in-depth, detailed explanation on why using <> is bad.

Where <> could be a poor coding style, unnecessary use of tools / resources etc.

If it matters I was specifically thinking about the use of backticks as line continuation characters. While they are fine and have their place they do not always need to be used and have much cleaner and friendly alternatives.

So getting to the point. What does the community think about canonical posts like this. Assuming that they can stand alone and meet the sites standards?

I have no strong desire either way but since I am just getting started I would just like to get a feel of where to go.


marked as duplicate by 200_success discussion Jan 15 '16 at 7:34

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.