0
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

I provided the fifth vote to close this question as off topic because it belongs on http://physics.stackexchange.com. From previous cases, I was expecting this to cause the question to be migrated to the physics site. Instead, the “put on hold as off-topic” notification was placed on the question. I then searched for and found the question on the physics site; apparently the author had cross-posted it there shortly before without notifying us. I understand that it makes no sense to “migrate” the question to the physics site if it's already there; but the note saying it was put on hold seems unnecessarily wrong – especially considering that it contains the encouragement “If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.”, which is inappropriate in this case.

(Note that this is not a duplicate of this feature request – the problem was not that my reason to vote to close differed from others'; all five close votes where for the same reason that the question belongs on the physics site.)

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by quid Aug 29 '18 at 14:14

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How is it "wrong"? You voted to close the question as off-topic. It shows the question was put on hold as off-topic. If the question is in fact not off-topic, you should not have voted to migrate it. If the OP wishes to turn the question into one that is on-topic for this site, that's always fine, too. What exactly would you want the message to show and how would this be more useful? $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 29 '18 at 13:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that this is the same when the question actually was on the other site. See here for an example. A difference is thought that the post-history is more clear. There is however still a trace in that posts history too, though it is rather cryptic. It's the lock-unlock event. I might agree that the post-history could be more clear. (I think that came up already.) Yet, I still do not see what "bug" you want to report. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 29 '18 at 13:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Finally I don't really see the difference to your earlier posting (though in this case it's an auto-reject rather than a manual one but that seems tangential) math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8502/… ? I mark this as a duplicate for now; just ping me if there is a difference that I overlooked and I'll reopen it. (Though I still don't see it as a bug, as others explained on the other post.) $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 29 '18 at 14:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "I understand that it makes no sense to “migrate” the question to the physics site if it's already there" is debatable. Perhaps what would make most sense is that when a migrated question is closed as a duplicate of a question by the same user in the last 48 hours it should be automatically merged, so that the original question on the sending site remains closed as a migration with migration target of the dupe target on the receiving site. $\endgroup$ – Peter Taylor Aug 29 '18 at 14:40
  • $\begingroup$ Voting to close as "off-topic" -- "this belongs on another site" -- choice "Physics.se" upon closure, was correctly marked "closed as off-topic", else why the first click, second click, and click on physicis.se.? There may also have been other "off-topic" reasons, but not for the reason you list, @joriki. If they all had in common "off-topic", so be it: Let it be... (on hold as off topic). $\endgroup$ – Namaste Aug 29 '18 at 19:53

Browse other questions tagged .