I think there are better and worse ways of creating question to be self-answered. The best way is to have a question that you were going to ask but answered before you asked. Next best is to closely model the question off of a real question.

Here, you play a character who comes off as having no understanding of the programming language they are using and who has decided to randomly try things instead of doing a modicum of research. The advice the character needs is not how to concatenate strings, but how to find reputable resources for learning the language they are using.

I would recommend against putting on a persona. If you're going to ask such a question, just have it be more upfront, e.g. "Python has many ways of combining strings. What are the differences between them and when should I use each?" Also, if a question isn't being asked and is well covered in many readily accessible resources, maybe there isn't much value in posting a Q&A on it.

Regarding research and "readily accessible" information, please see this meta question, where I put quite a bit of effort into explaining my own stance, as well as my thoughts on how to grow the community. The short version: really almost nothing is being asked right now, and the best way I can think of to change that is to make this a "readily accessible resource". But more importantly, having things like this written in advance should greatly facilitate future answers on more specific questions, which then have a ready reference for underlying concepts.

I generally agree about putting on a persona. However, I actually was trying to avoid it here - it's just that there's still a need to set up an example to dissect in the answer(s). If you have specific wording suggestions, please feel free to submit an edit.

I agree with Derek Elkins‭ that this question comes over as too artificial. In the list you linked in the answer to the meta question, you list these top questions. One common aspect of these questions seems to be that they have very short and simple question statements. These questions are popular because people who actually have this question can immediately identify whether this question is relevant for them. These people probably won't know whether they are running Python 3.9 or 3.10 and they might also get confused by what a tuple is, if they understand what types are at all.

It seems appropriate to show common non-working attempts, because that will help someone who is redirected here after trying one of them. I'll try to simplify the wording, and move the point about versions to a footnote.

I definitely agree that showing non-working attempts is generally a good thing. I do feel that the non-working attempts should be conceivable from the standpoint of someone who could have this question, however. I just can't imagine that someone would think about tuples in this kind of scenario.

"I just can't imagine that someone would think about tuples in this kind of scenario." I think you've misunderstood. The word "tuple" here is only used to describe the result of the non-working attempt.