I was startled just now to find what I considered a non-trivial (albeit very short) answer summarily (and almost before I posted it!) turned into a comment on the grounds that it was trivial. In fact it was a pointer to an answer to another question, directing the OP’s attention both to the answer itself and to the discussion in the ensuing comments; between them they largely answered her question. I could have copied the information into a new answer, and presumably that would have stood as a substantive answer. So I’m curious: why is it ‘trivial’ when it’s at the other end of a link that is accompanied by an indication of what to look for? Does that hold equally for an answer that contains little more than link to a proof available elsewhere on-line?
In retrospect I should probably simply have voted to close the question as a duplicate, as I’ve now done, but I’m still curious about the question in the title.
(Feel free to re-tag this; I’m still learning my way around the meta tags.)