last day (31 days later) » 

Tonepoet
Tonepoet
2:23 PM
I figure it might be easier for you if you just had a whole chatroom where you could do this. Comments are limited to 500 characters and I think I saw Mr. Tchrist move extended comment discussions on meta recently.
 
Lawrence
Lawrence
Hello. :)
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
Also hi again.
 
Lawrence
Lawrence
A provocative title. :)
But thanks.
Let me copy the stuff over.
 
Lawrence
Lawrence
Reference:
2
A: Please VTR the "I am happy for you" question

TonepoetAlthough I disagree with some of the already presented reasons, I actually agree that the question should not be reopened in its current form. However, I deeply believe wherever it is reasonably possible, that the community should strive to get questions reopened since in The War of the Closes po...

Comments:
I'm very much in favour of the "closed => improve the question" philosophy you quoted. The only problem is that when people see "closed", they don't normally think "let me rephrase". They tend to think "What! Why!?" This is based entirely on impressions and isn't a scientific statement, of course, but I offer as support the enthusiastic praise occasionally heaped on the rare individuals that rephrase in response to closure. — Lawrence 28 mins ago
I know that a comment to an answer isn't the best place for this, but I suggest Needs Improvement as a replacement for Closed, or at least for On Hold. "Needs Improvement" invites editing, whereas "On Hold" simply invites waiting, and "Closed" invites protests. — Lawrence 28 mins ago
@Lawrence If you read the whole War of the Closes post, you'll note that improving the language is why the On Hold message exists. There is more or less no other difference between On Hold or Closed. However, the close message seems to be an S.E. wide feature, so E.L. & U. probably can't do much about it. I'd suggest checking to see if there is a proposal for On hold for improvement on Meta Stack Exchange before making one there. You'll probably need to explain why if changing the language didn't work once, why it'll be any better now though. — Tonepoet 14 mins ago
I haven't done the necessary research (at least, not recently), so I haven't posted the suggestion as a question / feature request on Meta.SE - or here, for that matter. Just jotting down some thoughts for now. It's not a matter of softening the language, but of phrasing things in such a way that naturally invites the desired response. — Lawrence 10 mins ago
 
Lawrence
Lawrence
Ok, done.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
2:26 PM
Probably worth note that I think any change in wording that elicits the desired response is probably an improvement in language, if not grammatically, then at least rhetorically. =P
 
Lawrence
Lawrence
Yes, quite! :)
I'm happy to see that one of the higher-ups shares the view that question closure is an invitation for improvement.
I'm sure that's consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of Stack Exchange when it was started.
(Based on some blog posts by one of the founders.)
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
Though personally I like on hold for improvement because it's somewhat of both. It's still a fractured sentence, but at least it's one that I think could be more readily inferred what the meaning is. E.G. "This question has been placed on hold for improvement."
 
Lawrence
Lawrence
Here's an actual 'on hold' title:
- An adjective for something being in question or under analysis [on hold]
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@Lawrence Yes: Some of the thoughts on the Stack Overflow blog are quite well reasoned.
 
Lawrence
Lawrence
The part in the square brackets should be short and succinct, probably no more than 2 short words.
The 'reason for closure' box can contain the elaboration.
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
2:32 PM
Hmm, perhaps.
 
Lawrence
Lawrence
It's like they taught us way back when I was writing academic papers - the title is a summary of the whole paper that should prompt people to read the abstract; the abstract is a somewhat larger summary that should prompt people to read the paper; similarly for the introduction, etc.
Although we can put whatever we want into the reason-for-closure banner, we're already starting from behind if the OP's frame of mind isn't "I gotta edit this to make it better".
To rephrase stuff that's probably been said elsewhere on Meta - which would tend to motivate you to (1) read the banner; and (2) edit your work: closed or needs improvement?
(I know I'm preaching to the choir here.)
Thanks again for kindly starting this room. Catch you around!
:)
 
Tonepoet
Tonepoet
@Lawrence Oh don't worry about that. It's just a place for you to collect your thoughts and research on the matter, with the hopes that it might just help you make a great proposal.
 

  last day (31 days later) »