Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

25
  • 55
    Your call is important to us. Please hold for the next available representative. Due to our call volume, it could take up to 5 days for us to please hang up and try your call again later. Thank you for using Acme Community Moderation [click] Commented Mar 25, 2013 at 20:38
  • 53
    My two cents on first reading: On hold might not be the best choice here, it may be understood as "do not touch your post, things will eventually resolve themselves without your input", whereas we want the term to mean "absolutely do improve your post, and then we can reopen it". I'll try to suggest something less equivocal, if I'm able to. Commented Mar 25, 2013 at 20:41
  • 5
    cheap "McBain" straw man argument MENDOZAAAAAAA!! Commented Mar 25, 2013 at 20:47
  • 20
    Seriously? You can't make this question shorter? Commented Mar 25, 2013 at 20:52
  • 8
    Comic sans? -1. Also, how about instead of "on hold" you use "in purgatory"? Commented Mar 25, 2013 at 21:03
  • 3
    @Won't, I thought long and hard about it, but he's literally a comic strip character. Commented Mar 25, 2013 at 21:06
  • 13
    Alternate proposal. Replace [Closed] with [Please Delete Me]. Commented Mar 25, 2013 at 21:07
  • 4
    What happens with questions that cannot possibly be improved enough to be reopened? Such as "what book should I read when starting out in brainfetc?" Commented Mar 25, 2013 at 21:10
  • 16
    Since you're starting with a poetic pun, let me counter with Shakespeare. "What's in a name? that which we call a close / By any other name would smell as sweet;" Commented Mar 25, 2013 at 21:23
  • 2
    "On Hold" implies that it will be released back to normal at some point, and doesn't necessarily lead to the user to understanding that his/her question is on its way to being closed. Are you going to make sure the text explaining "On Hold" is clear that it is pending closure, and won't just be going back to normal after the hold message expires? Commented Mar 26, 2013 at 18:22
  • 22
    Have you considered usability by non-English natives? “Closed” is a very basic word, taught early in the curriculum. “On hold” is more difficult, and the meaning isn't so easy to grasp from a dictionary (just the fact that it's a two-work idiom makes it harder). Furthermore, even to English natives, where “closed” is bad for conveying something final, “on hold” may be just as bad for conveying something that is outside the asker's control. Commented Mar 26, 2013 at 18:55
  • 3
    Still have a problem of 50K+ questions needing closure or "on holdness". Will this address that and put all 50K pending into a hold status? Commented Mar 27, 2013 at 20:25
  • 36
    I'd suggest "Needs improvement" instead of "on hold". Seems more suggestive of what will happen if nothing is done, and explains why it's on hold Commented Mar 28, 2013 at 0:37
  • 7
    seems like a perfect compromise to me -- softer language at the start, then hardening a bit to closed. I upvoted the "on hold" language suggestion on the original topic, too, for the record! Commented Mar 28, 2013 at 19:23
  • 2
    Awesome. Awesome. "Well, I'm glad I pretended you asked.": Classic. It's great that you're doing all this with closing, so we get to be just as strict as usual, but sound so much less like jerks. Commented Apr 30, 2013 at 22:52