# Old phrase “closed as duplicate” more accurate than the new “marked as duplicate”

Titles of questions closed as duplicate now are marked [duplicate] instead of [closed].

Below the question, the banner has been changed to "Marked as duplicate". Unless there is a difference in practical result between the different forms of closing, it would be more informative to say "closed as duplicate".

• Why is this posted on Math.SE? Nothing in this question is specific to mathematics. This behavior is uniform across SE network. It would make no sense to have mathematical questions "closed" while physics or programming questions are "marked". // The appropriate outlet for such feature requests is meta.stackexchange.com – user53153 Mar 2 '13 at 18:45
• And yes, there are differences between different forms of closing. Some of them carry an automatic downvote. Closing as duplicate does not. – user53153 Mar 2 '13 at 18:47
• Comments that ask "why did you do X" are generally not useful. – zyx Mar 2 '13 at 18:52
• @5pm It is in principle allowed to have global feauture-requests on individul sites and they are checked by global mods. Meta-stackexchange leads yout to meta-stackoverflow. It is, at least to me, very annoying that these issues are often only discussed on a place where I cannot downvote because I lack the reputation at that site. – Michael Greinecker Mar 2 '13 at 18:54
• The automatic downvote on NARQ/OT closings is documented here: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/84978/… . This is not a functional difference in the operations allowed on a question, number of votes neeeded to reopen, or the rep needed to perform particular actions on the posting. In fact it seems to be the only difference, and if that is true I would certainly consider Closed As Duplicate to be the more accurate message. – zyx Mar 2 '13 at 19:06
• @5pm: The StackOverlords mentioned it several times before that they are watching the meta sites for feature requests. – Asaf Karagila Mar 2 '13 at 19:07
• @Asaf Sure they do. My points are (i) whichever option (closed/marked) is chosen, it should be uniform across the network. (ii) interface changes across the network do not happen without StackOverflow being on board with them. For Michael: StackOverflow users and Math.StackExchange users are in the same position when entering meta.SE/meta.SO. That site has its own reputation counts, unrelated to SO. – user53153 Mar 2 '13 at 19:11
• @5pm: So what? The overlords see the feature requests and they may think they are good and start a discussion on MSO; or they think they are good and minor enough to implement them; or they think they suck and refuse to bow to pressure other than MSO pressure, in which case they will let us know by leaving a reply (which will be much more polite than "This is a sucky feature idea!"). Either way, I don't see why I should register to another site on the network. – Asaf Karagila Mar 2 '13 at 19:14
• @Asaf I looked through the total of 20 meta posts that are tagged both (feature-request) and (status-completed). The latest of them that was not actually a bug is from March 2011: Automatic Community-wikification. Most recent posts tagged (feature-request) have no input from SE devs, unless you count this comment. // But I guess I can appreciate writing global feature requests on a per-site meta as a pure art form. – user53153 Mar 2 '13 at 20:35
• Feature request can be posted on MSO or on a per-site meta, both are monitored by SE. In my experience, posts on per-site metas get overlooked more easily, but if there is a well-received feature request important to one site, their mods can, and should point some SE employees towards that post. – user9733 Mar 2 '13 at 21:29

This was an intentional change, part of a larger set of changes to the whole question closure mechanisms. And I think that it is a good change.

Closing has a negative association, and while the intention behind it is not necessarily negative, it will be viewed in most cases as negative by the user who asked the question that is closed. There are factors that exacerbate the negativity, e.g. a non-obvious closure without a comment explaining why, or sarcastic to even hostile comments on the closure. But even in the best of circumstances, the word closure will be perceived as negative, the user that asked the question will get the impression that he/she did something wrong.

And while sometimes the user did something wrong, and did not even do a basic search before asking, often the duplicates are not obvious or easy to find. The idea is to go from the negative point of view, of telling the user that they did something wrong and that we shut down their question, to a positive view. Closing as a duplicate means that there is already an answer to the users question. So now we are telling the user "look here, we already have an answer for you". The change of "closed" to "marked" is one of the changes that are meant to give new users a better impression of what it means when their question is closed as a duplicate.

There is no practical difference between "marked" and "closed", this is purely a change of name.

• There was no global replacement of Closed by Marked, there are actions that are identical (and in the FAQ are all called "closing" a question, math.stackexchange.com/faq#close) but are being described by two different words. CLOSED has the advantage of making it clear that no new answers can be added, and being consistent with the close/reopen vote button. MARKED is more ambiguous and, as the FAQ linked shows, not properly documented. – zyx Mar 3 '13 at 4:31
• In addition, wouldn't the friendliness requirement be better satisfied by using one word for all closing categories, but adding a public or private notice that "we welcome possibly duplicative questions as an intended use of the server"? – zyx Mar 3 '13 at 4:55