For example I recently saw a question about the meaning of strong, weak, retain, assign, atomic, and nonatomic in Objective-C @property declarations.

There's no one existing question that covers all of those points, but there is:

  1. a question about strong, weak, retain, and assign
  2. a question about atomic and nonatomic

On the one hand there isn't a single exact duplicate out there, but it also seems weird to keep a question for which a good answer could be made by just copy&pasting the answers to two other questions, and for which the answers could have been easily found by search.

What should be done in this kind of situation?

2 Answers 2


There's a few problems with the question you mention, in my view.

First of all (and to address what you're asking), it's overly broad. The fact that there are at least two separate questions which each answer one piece of it strongly indicates that it is, in fact, at least two questions jammed into one post. (Given domain-specific knowledge, which I have, it's clear that there is only a weak relationship between the parts. Granted that the OP may not realize this, but see next paragraph.)

Second, it is essentially a "general reference" question -- the explanations can be found very easily in the relevant documentation, which is readily available in the platform's IDE. More importantly, since that's not an official close reason,* they can also easily be found by reading through any number of Stack Overflow questions on this topic, which can be found via very basic searches:

I believe there are other problems justifying closure, but I don't want to stray too far from the question you've asked.

To sum up, the "conjoined" question should be closed, and links to both (or several) questions which answer it should be included.

*(more's the pity)


Moderator at Programmers meta recommended the way to handle conjunction cases in questions closed as duplicates as follows (bold font in quote is mine):

while the duplicate link is auto generated it is actually inserted into the question body so can be edited. It should always remain, but there's nothing to stop you (or anyone else) editing extra links into the list or indeed replacing the current one with a more appropriate one.

  • that's how a diff may look like for added extra links:


  • 3
    This text is no longer editable; has your practice changed?
    – jscs
    Commented Jun 5, 2014 at 19:00
  • @JoshCaswell yes, these days, if I believe that I can justify importance of "conjunction" in a flag message, I flag for moderator to take care of that
    – gnat
    Commented Jun 5, 2014 at 21:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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