What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 127 Stack Exchange communities.

When you lock an answer you still get the same list of lock reasons as for questions.

This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. More info: FAQ

Example of a locked answer.

Should we have different messages for answers, or should we just not be locking them (for this reason)?

Edit: This is a special case, so I'm thinking "don't do that" is the answer here, or at least the work-around for every other answer on SO.

share|improve this question
That one doesn't seem to fit in any of the lock reasons really –  random Oct 5 '11 at 3:20
@random: Yeah, I think you're right. Misguided people were trying to edit it, so we locked it a while ago. I want to preserve it for "historical reasons" but the rest of the lock description just doesn't fit. –  Bill the Lizard Oct 5 '11 at 3:22
Well, if people wanted to get their mitts on that answer again, it would be the content dispute reason –  random Oct 5 '11 at 3:42
The answer you link is not locked; I was able to edit it. It's the question that has been locked. –  kiamlaluno Oct 5 '11 at 10:55
Per waffles' answer, I've changed this lock to "content dispute". This should be the preferred reason for answers. –  Shog9 Mar 11 '12 at 19:07
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 12 down vote accepted

I get that we may want this locked, but not due to historical significance per-se.

We kind of want:

This answer was locked to preserve the original content. This answer is canonical and timeless, it should not be improved or edited any further.

However, thinking a bit more I am not sure about this. The reason we want to lock this is due to a content dispute, yahelc and Lèse majesté disputed the content. Which caused a kerfuffle.

Personally I think a better approach may be to widen the wording on Content Dispute which is:

This post has been locked while disputes about its content are being resolved. For more info visit meta

to something wider:

This post has been locked due to disputes about its content. For more info visit meta

I did not anticipate we would use historical significance on answers, and can not think of a valid case where it makes sense.

Another option would be to leave stuff as is and expand the lock timer so it allows for longer timeframes, who knows, perhaps one day bobince may grace us and further refine his art.

share|improve this answer
I don't really see any difference in meaning between "preserve the original content...canonical and timeless" and "historical significance" -- what reason could there be for preservation other than "historical signficance"? The only problem that I can see with the lock message is that it says "question", but is applied to an answer. –  Josh Caswell Oct 5 '11 at 4:16
historical significance implies ... it does not belong here, but we are keeping it... bobince's answer clearly belongs –  waffles Oct 5 '11 at 4:17
Agreed that it belongs, is a wonderful read, should be part of programming history, is a valuable artifact, but I think it stands alone, and I'm not sure we really want more answers like it. It's very close to being a dear-lord-another-stupid-question-rant non-answer. yahelc's edit, though I strongly disagree with it, does have a point: there's a lot of (artful) fluff surrounding the fundamental statement. Dunno, maybe I'll be pilloried for this, but I'd say it "is not considered a good[, constructive] answer for the site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can post similar answers." –  Josh Caswell Oct 5 '11 at 4:28
Further refine? Sounds like the ominous forebear of the work styles of George Lucas. –  random Oct 5 '11 at 4:35
If this goes through, you'll definitely need to lock it, and you'll need a whole new lock reason! :) –  Benjol Oct 5 '11 at 7:08
@Benjol ... locked as status unicorn –  waffles Oct 5 '11 at 10:32
@Ἰησοῦς Caswell the point is that we both disagree on the reason this should be locked, hence the reason this should be locked is due to a dispute ... if there was no dispute we would not need to lock it. –  waffles Oct 5 '11 at 10:33
I agree, this was originally locked due to a content dispute, so that should be the lock reason. It always gets flagged pretty quickly when anyone goes near it, so I don't have a problem with rolling back and temporarily locking it. –  Bill the Lizard Oct 5 '11 at 11:21
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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