Just noticed something interesting from this question where the question was closed because of being a duplicate of this question. The asker then re-opened the new question after editing the older question's title to make it appear different from the new question, rather than changing the new question. Even though the title of one was changed, neither really changed.

I was not clever enough to consider this on my own, so I'm asking if this pattern (editing another question) is one I could follow to clarify why my own questions are unique in order to have them re-opened?

(Question stems from my own experiences running into Stack Exchange's notorious question-closing disputes before...)

| |
  • 2
    Unless the original title was a misnomer this sounds like a bad idea. – Caleb Mar 12 '15 at 17:31
  • 3
    @Caleb The new edited title was exactly in the original body. I don't see a problem here. – fгedsbend Mar 12 '15 at 18:01
  • Here's something similar that another user did. I would say that one was not appropriate action, and SE agrees, according to the answer on that post. – fгedsbend Mar 12 '15 at 18:12
  • The question should not have been closed as a duplicate - they are different questions. Edits to make this clearer (that also remain faithful to the intent of each question) are good edits. – bruised reed Mar 15 '15 at 8:06

The original forms of both questions are not that different from what they are now. You are right. See Mawia's and Narnian's.

So what did Mawia change in Narnian's question? The title was originally

What is the archaeological evidence in support of the Book of Mormon?

Mawia took a sentence from the body exactly and made that the title, changing it to

What is the archaeological evidence for the events in the Book of Mormon?

Now Mawia's question is different. His original title reads:

Are there any [sic] archeolical evidences suggesting the existence of the Book of Mormon?

All he did was fix the spelling in later revisions and gave a note that he does not believe this is a duplicate.

Nothing nefarious has happened here. Mawia made a reasonable edit and did not change the original in an significant way. Instead it was an obvious attempt to make the title clearer according to what was in the body.

Essentially, it seems that your problem is that you think this is a duplicate, but currently you are the only one convinced of that conclusion. It's only been four hours since Mawia posted. Wait a day or two for users to see the post in the review queue.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .