# 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