Timeline for What are the rules for big edits of titles?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 3 at 22:58 | comment | added | copper.hat | @MartinBrandenburg I was referring to you specifically. | |
| Dec 3 at 22:30 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | @copper.hat Do you mean me or any user with the edit rights? | |
| Nov 25 at 0:22 | comment | added | copper.hat | I would imagine that any edit that you are comfortable with would be a good one. | |
| Nov 23 at 7:53 | vote | accept | Martin Brandenburg | ||
| Nov 23 at 7:40 | answer | added | D.W. | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 16 at 21:23 | comment | added | hardmath | Closely related, see the discussion under my post: Retitling Questions: a modest proposal. I framed it in terms of editing the title after an Accepted Answer, on my imagining that the actual subject matter would have become clarified by then. But others felt we could be more proactive. | |
| Nov 16 at 3:45 | answer | added | user2661923 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 16 at 3:38 | comment | added | PatrickR | Also of note: Even when the title changes, the id of the post remains the same. So any link to the post using the old title will still work as before because the title portion of the url is ignored. The post will still be accessible from all places that were linking to it. And it will become more accessible to people searching for a particular topic. | |
| Nov 16 at 3:33 | comment | added | user2661923 | @AndrewT. For what it's worth, I second the comment of Alex M., immediately following your comment. The linked question was itself mistakenly characterized as a duplicate of a previous question, despite the fact that the earlier question did not focus on whether a MathSE reviewer should edit the title. | |
| Nov 15 at 18:56 | answer | added | lulu | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 15 at 9:08 | history | edited | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 136 characters in body
|
| Nov 15 at 9:01 | history | edited | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 536 characters in body
|
| Nov 15 at 8:20 | comment | added | Alex M. | @AndrewT.: Let us call this question "Q". The question that you are linking to ("Q1") was closed (single-handedly by a moderator) as a duplicate of another one ("Q2"). Sadly, Q2 is about what makes a good title, while Q and Q1 are about how to edit a question in order to change its title into a better one, without getting into conflict with its author. This means that Q1 was not a duplicate of Q2, and it should be reopened, and Q should stay open too, until at least one of Q and Q1 gets answered. | |
| Nov 15 at 7:36 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 15 at 22:07 | |||||
| Nov 15 at 4:13 | history | became hot meta post | |||
| Nov 15 at 2:45 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | I will just mention that the edit summary one possible place where you can leave the explanation why you edited the title. (In fact, you wrote " more informative title" in one your example; that seems quite reasonable edit summary to me.) | |
| Nov 15 at 2:43 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 15 at 0:34 | history | edited | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Nov 15 at 0:24 | history | asked | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |