0

Both questions have been merged into another one:

Actually, the 2nd question is the only example I found of a merged question with a modified title, yet it was edited by a moderator. There doesn't seem to have been a meta discussion yet.

While merged questions are rare, I do think that modifying the title like this is maybe a good idea. Merged questions are special:

  • "All of the merged question's answers, including their votes and comments, become answers to the target question."
  • "The merge stub question is locked to prevent edits to its content that would make the merge no longer make sense."

But there is no indication that a question is merged until you actually click on it. It just looks like a regular question with no answers.

Should the title be edited to include [merged] (or something else) or not?

2

On this site, we don't have that many - a merge requires the two to be very similar, and usually we spot the dupe before many answers are posted. I think for that one there was discussion between mods to ensure the new question made sense, but I don't think there is policy on this.

Having MERGED in there is not necessary, though - it is irrelevant to any future readers.

  • I tracked down a feature request that didn't get too far, though (but people seemed to like it). Does [merged] contain less info for future readers than [closed] or [duplicate]? Or is this just because there are generally so few merged questions (in contrast to closed / duplicate ones)? – Anne Daunted Nov 3 '18 at 17:19
  • It's just that it oesn't matter if it is merged - it doesn't change the question or answer (as we can only merge if they are basically identical) – Rory Alsop Nov 3 '18 at 17:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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