I think it's worth pointing out that the post was closed by the top 2 users in the tag, 2 additional users who are active and show great experience in the tag and are members of the dedicated chatroom and myself, active in both the tag and the chatroom.

The timeline for the question if anyone is interested: The close vote review where it got 2 CVs and then a mod used their binding vote to leave it open, then closed outside the queue as per above comment. Was then a 3 to 2 split in the reopen review but was left closed (here a top user in the tag voted to reopen but someone with the highest scored GoT answer left it closed). It was then hammered open by a mod later on.

but is extremely likely to occur in the upcoming season. "Extremely likely" isn't FWP. This is covered in both of the highly upvoted answers in the FW definition post. We have no guarantee or promise that such a scenario will ever happen or be addressed, just an assumption.

@phantom42 Just went through your answer, so If my comprehension is correct, your position is given that we don't know for sure that such a scenario will occur, the question is not FWP and should not be closed?

@phantom42 Under that definition then nothing is really FWP because no one can know for sure what is in the new material unless they are writing it.

FW is now things we have on solid authority will occur, or based on trailers. If a trailer or someone involved with production said, "yeah, we're gonna see that next season", bam, future works. But as Aegon said, this hasn't happened and you're all just assuming it will.

The result of the more recent FWP discussion absolutely scaled back the definition of FW. You're more than welcome to continue that discussion and try to sway it back, but that IS the current definition/policy.

@phantom42 Any works that aren't available to pull canon from are FWP. Every single variant listed in the question (Is it works that we know for sure will exist/be released? Things we assume will exist/be released? Things that just maybe will exist/be released?) are FWP. The current top answer seems to contradict that in the very first point if I'm not mistaken

Along with this point, as shown in the question above: This is a bit difficult to do with precision in all cases, as some questions may be borderline (in a sense of, it may ask about something technically about Episode 8, but to any canon expert, it's clear that the answer will be unknown till Episode 9 - personally I'd be OK with FWPing such a question but wouldn't be heartbroken if it stays open).

Yes, and that's why I took issue with some of the wording of DVK's answer. But keep reading down to ""No answer known yet but may be revealed in future works" is an excellent answer but NOT a valid reason to VTC" which brings it back.

Those "borderline" questions are fuzzy, like he said. By strict definition, it's not FWP. That is likely why a mod reopened it, which is what this discussion is about.

@phantom42 And note that both gold tag badge holders and most of the tags active members (bar one) who voted, voted to close it. It would appear it should be closed from the comments above.

There's seems to be a conflation of what is our Future works policy and what is our clarification of the term "future works".

/shrug, to me, this is fuzzy and I fall on the opposite view. but again, the question here is why a mod acted a certain way, and I'm just saying that the based on the existing definition/policy, that action is pretty well justified.

This is already covered in the existing policy. Specifically, questions of the form "in [future work], does X happen" are closed while questions of the form "in [ongoing franchise], does X happen" are left open: "No answer known yet but may be revealed in future works" is an excellent answer but NOT a valid reason to VTC. I'm duping this so that voting on answers here doesn't confuse the status of the already-established general policy (as you probably know, we've had trouble elsewhere with such policy confusion). If you want to change the policy, you need a new meta as @phantom suggests.

@Randal'Thor There’s disagreement how the top answer on the dupe target applies to this specific case so I don’t think closing was the appropriate action here. However, use your judgement as you see fit and hey, means my answer stays on an open question.

@Randal'Thor you seem to be confused as well, that meta isn’t a “new Future works Policy post” it is merely a clarification of the term “Future Works”. That is what the title and body of the question says. The original remains DVKs original answer. Stating otherwise would be an abuse of the votes cast on that meta as it very explicitly asks for a clarification of the term future works. As such, I have voted to re-open, as this post has nothing to do with such a clarification, and the answers on the other post don’t answer why this mod decided to carry out said action.

@Edlothiad I'm not confused at all. That meta is our new policy on how the FWP should be applied. Since the question on main was closed against policy, I fixed the mistake by reopening it. As for this question on meta, it's clearly answered by the current policy, as phantom42 already pointed out, and I'd rather not have the possibility of answers being posted here which could confuse the current clear consensus on the FWP.

@Randal'Thor How is it clear when there are at least a handful of users arguing against it and using quotes from that post to support their case?

@TheLethalCarrot Sometimes people try to use a policy to justify doing the exact opposite of what the policy says. shrug

@Randal'Thor I'm confused by your wording, you seem to be using the term FWP interchangeably between two very different posts. One which is specifically about the wording of the term "Future Works", the other is our policy on when to close said "Future Works" as part of the policy.

@Randal'Thor Well I personally quoted complete paragraphs in context to how they are used so not sure how I'm justifying the exact opposite...